Merritt, Ryan Rashad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a reviewing court errs when it focuses “on the existence of a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of the accused”
• holding that even though motive and opportunity are not sufficient to prove identity, they are circumstances indicative of guilt
• holding that appellate court must consider “combined and cumulative force” of all evidence in light most favorable to trial court’s finding in reviewing sufficiency of identity evidence
• concluding that appellate court failed to consider “combined and cumulative force” of all evidence in light most favorable 10 to trial court’s finding in reviewing sufficiency of identity evidence
• holding that appellate court improperly acted as thirteenth juror in sufficiency of evidence review when it speculated and focused on existence of a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt of accused
• holding that appellate court improperly acted as thirteenth juror in sufficiency of evidence review when it speculated and focused on existence of a reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with guilt of accused

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).