Commonwealth v. Roux

How courts have described this case

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

• providing that a conspiracy may be inferentially demonstrated by showing the “relation, conduct, or circumstances of the parties, and the overt acts on the part of co-conspirators”
• conspirator is responsible for acts of coconspirators which are committed in furtherance of common design
• “[I]t is well-settled that the finder of fact may believe all or a part of or none of the testimony of any witness”
• evidence of conspiracy to assault sufficient where defendant was seen passing weapon to co-conspirators and leaving bar with them shortly behind victim, and participated in beating
• ”[I]t is well-settled that the finder of fact may believe all or a part of or none of the testimony of any witness. Therefore, the finder of fact was free to disregard [witness’s] testimony in whole or in part.”
• “[I]t is well-settled that the finder of fact may believe all or a part of or none of the testimony of any witness. Therefore, the finder of fact was free to disregard [witness’s] testimony in whole or in part.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).