State v. Arnal

How courts have described this case

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

• confirming that it is not proper on a Rule 3.190(c)(4) motion to determine factual issues, to weigh evidence, or to determine credibility
• finding that “[wjhile intent or state of mind may, as the trial court correctly noted, be difficult to establish, it is not, as we have stated ‘an issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss under Rule 3.190(c)(4
• stating that “[t]o avoid dismissal under this rule, the State is not obligated to pre-try its case, only to provide sufficient facts, when viewed in a light most favorable to the State, to show that a reasonable jury could rule in its favor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).