Van Jenkins v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Jenkins's directed-verdict motion mentioning only capital murder preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for first-degree murder because the elements that the State was required to prove under sections 5-10-101(a)(1
• holding that Jenkins's directed-verdict motion mentioning only capital murder preserved his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for first-degree murder because the elements that the State was required to prove under sections 5-10-101(a)(1) and 5-10-102(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).