Yarborough v. Commonwealth

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 trial court is presumed to know the law and to properly apply it to the facts in a case
• recognizing that a trial judge is presumed to know and properly apply the law “[a]bsent clear evidence to the contrary in the record”
• holding that trial court is presumed to know and properly apply the law
• holding that where the judge’s statements “furnish[ed] alternative bases, one correct and one erroneous, for his finding of defendant’s guilt,” the “judgment of conviction” was not “plainly wrong or without evidence to support it” and affirmance was proper
• holding that a reviewing court “will not fix upon isolated statements of the trial judge taken out of the full context in which they were made[] and use them as a predicate for holding the law has been misapplied”
• holding that a reviewing court “will not fix upon isolated statements of the trial judge taken out of the full context in which they were made[] and use them as a predicate for holding the law has been misapplied”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).