abandoning its special standard of review for circumstantial evidence because that standard was "based on antiquated ideas concerning the value of circumstantial evidence”
How later courts described this case
- abandoning its special standard of review for circumstantial evidence because that standard was "based on antiquated ideas concerning the value of circumstantial evidence”
- listing states that apply a unified standard of review when examining the sufficiency of both direct and circumstantial evidence
- promulgating current, modified version of OUJI-CR(2d) 9-5, which eliminates reference to need to exclude "any reasonable theory or conclusion of a defendant's innocence"
- altering the standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in cases premised entirely on circumstantial evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STRUBHAR, J.,
Dissenting.
¶ 1 I dissent. There is no reason for this Court to adopt a new procedure on the questions presented to us on sufficiency of the' evidence. The different standards of review now utilized are indeed justified.