Zahn v. Zahn

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that jury could have concluded defendant was not guilty of theft and was guilty only of attempted theft if it believed parts of defendant’s testimony and disbelieved pther parts
• stating that a reviewing court may not “pluck” a single part of the testimony from the record and view it in isolation; rather, we are required to view such testimony in context
• noting “it is the jury’s province to decide which parts of th[e] evidence to believe”
• relying on both the jury’s ability to selectively believe evidence and sufficient evidence of the lesser
• comparing charged offense of theft against lesser offense of attempted theft
• because commonly understood meaning of value closely resembles applicable statutory definition, egregious harm not supported by record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).