Crump v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim and her mother did not “render the evidence incredible as a matter of law”
• holding that the inconsistencies in the testimony of two witnesses, the victim and her mother, did not “render the evidence” supporting the conviction “incredible as a matter of law”
• holding that the inconsistencies in the testimony of two different witnesses, the victim and her mother, did not “render the evidence” supporting the conviction “incredible as a matter of law”
• drawing inference that \private parts\ in child's testimony referred to genitalia
• “[T]he child’s testimony alone, if believed by the [trier of fact], was sufficient to support [Crump’s] conviction, even in the absence of corroborating physical or testimonial evidence.” (alterations in original) (quoting Love v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 84, 90 (1994))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).