Campos, Mario Ballestero

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that the fact finder is responsible for evaluating the credibility of witnesses
• first quoting Scott v. * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 380, 381 (2016); and then citing Kelley v. Commonwealth, 289 Va. 463, 467-68 (2015)
• “[T]he factfinder determines which reasonable inferences should be drawn from the evidence, and whether to reject as unreasonable the hypotheses of innocence advanced by a defendant.” (alteration in original) (quoting Moseley, 293 Va. at 464)
• “[T]he factfinder determines which reasonable inferences should be drawn from the evidence, and whether to reject as unreasonable the hypotheses of innocence advanced by a defendant.” (alteration in original) (quoting Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455, 464 (2017))
• “[T]he fact[-]finder determines which reasonable inferences should be drawn from the evidence, and whether to reject as unreasonable the hypotheses of innocence advanced by a defendant.” (first alteration in original) (quoting Moseley v. Commonwealth, 293 Va. 455, 464 (2017))
• “Evidence is not ‘incredible’ unless it is ‘so manifestly false that reasonable men ought not to believe it’ or ‘shown to be false by objects or things as to the existence and meaning of which reasonable men should not differ.’” (quoting Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362, 415 (2006

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).