Killing, which indicates the killing is by prior calculation and design. Period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual Measured by any particular period of time, there must be some Although premeditation and deliberation are not Specific wording of the instruction, and the precise extent andĬharacter of any specific instruction will be reviewed only for anĥ. The jury, so long as the charge accurately reflects the law.ĭeference is given to a trial court's discretion concerning the A trialĬourt, therefore, has broad discretion in formulating its charge to Instruction is looked at when determining its accuracy. Jury instruction cannot be dissected on appeal instead, the entire Understood the issues involved and were not mislead by the law. Reviewed as a whole, sufficiently instructed the jury so they Instructions are reviewed by determining whether the charge, A trial court's instructions to the jury must be aĬorrect statement of the law and supported by the evidence. To theĮxtent that our prior cases are inconsistent, they are expresslyĤ. Which the jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Record contains no evidence, regardless of how it is weighed, from Finally, a jury verdict should be set aside only when the Need not be inconsistent with every conclusion save that of guilt so long as the jury can find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Ĭredibility determinations are for a jury and not an appellateĬourt. Jury might have drawn in favor of the prosecution. Must credit all inferences and credibility assessments that the AnĪppellate court must review all the evidence, whether direct orĬircumstantial, in the light most favorable to the prosecution and The evidence to support a conviction takes on a heavy burden. A criminal defendant challenging the sufficiency of Required even if the State relies wholly on circumstantialģ. Heavy burden under the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt standard, anĪdditional instruction on circumstantial evidence is no longer OnceĪ proper instruction is given advising the jury as to the State's There should be only one standard of proof inĬriminal cases and that is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Light most favorable to the prosecution, any rationale trier ofįact could have found the essential elements of the crime provedĢ. The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the Person of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether suchĮvidence, if believed, is sufficient to convince a reasonable The sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is The function of an appellate court when reviewing JUSTICE WORKMAN concurs and reserves the right to file a concurringġ. RETIRED JUSTICE MILLER and JUDGE FOX sitting by temporary JUSTICE BROTHERTON and JUSTICE RECHT did not participate. JUSTICE CLECKLEY delivered the Opinion of the Court. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIAĪppeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |