Ricky G. Stallings v. Robert J. Tansy, Warden

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence was insufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction because “[t]he jury’s disbelief of petitioner’s testimony could not fill the gap left by the State’s total lack of relevant evidence as to petitioner’s guilty knowledge”
• noting that courts “do not agree ... on the circumstances that will support such an inference”
• “The jury’s disbelief of petitioner’s testimony could not fill the gap left by the State’s total lack of relevant evidence . . . .”
• “The jury’s disbelief of petitioner’s testimony could not fill the gap left by the State’s total lack of relevant evidence . . . .”
• discussing the constitutional importance of proving the elements of forgery
• “When ‘the evidence must be buttressed by surmise and conjecture, rather than logical inference in order to support a conviction, . . . such conviction [cannot be allowed] to stand.’” (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Romero, 67 N.M. 82, 83 (1960))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).