Moff v. State

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 rules of evidence prescribe that a complaining party obtain “an adverse ruling from the trial judge . . . to preserve error in the admission of the evidence”
• recognizing that the rules of evidence prescribe that a complaining party obtain “an adverse ruling from the trial judge . . . to preserve error in the admission of the evidence”
• holding the appellant who procedurally defaulted on the admissibility of evidence may challenge the sufficiency of that evidence to support the verdict
• observing that “[s]ometimes a claim of trial court evidentiary error and a claim of insufficient evidence overlap so much that it is hard to separate them.”
• holding where defendant challenges legal sufficiency of evidence to support conviction on direct appeal, appellate court always has duty to address, regardless of whether issue raised in trial court
• stating that an objection must be timely, proper, and specific to preserve error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).