In the Interest of R.C.H.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that because argument is not evidence, it is “of no consequence in a sufficiency analysis”
• observing that “[t]he arguments of the parties and their trial theories are not evidence”
• stating that “arguments of the parties and their trial theories are not evidence”
• stating that “arguments of the parties and their trial theories are not evidence”
• “[N]otwithstanding a court’s deference to the jury’s credibility and weight determinations, the jury’s finding of guilt must be a rational one in light of all of the evidence presented at trial.”
• “The necessary specific intent can be proven through circumstantial evidence, and we may rely on events that took place before, during, or after the commission of the offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).