Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 42 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from People v. Smith-Anthony.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | People v. Smith-Anthony Anchor | green | “to determine whether the prosecutor has presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 30 |
| 2 | People v. Gonzalez | green | “is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” | 6 |
| 3 | People v. Gonzalez | green | “the standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict.” | 6 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.