observing that, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the issue is "not whether the [fact finder] could have made other inferences from the evidence or even refused to draw any inference, but whether the inference [it] did make was supported by the evidence"
How later courts described this case
- observing that, in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the issue is "not whether the [fact finder] could have made other inferences from the evidence or even refused to draw any inference, but whether the inference [it] did make was supported by the evidence"
- holding the evidence was sufficient to support a finding that the lessee driver of a vehicle had knowingly transported a handgun recovered from the trunk of the vehicle in question
- noting a factfinder’s “ability to choose among differing inferences that might possibly be made from a factual situation” and that deference is owed “to the inferences a fact-finder may draw[]” (citing Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 )
- observing that presence of others in car can affect strength of inference that a defendant had knowledge of presence of handgun in a car, but does not make the inference unreasonable to begin with
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
BELL, C.J.
For the reasons so eloquently and cogently stated by Judge Kenney, concurring in Smith v. State, 145 Md.App. 400, 427-84 , 805 A.2d 1108, 1124-1128 (2002), I dissent.