People v. Claypool

Defendant was convicted of robbery in a jury trial. For reversal, he says he was not proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and, if not, he is entitled in any event to a new trial because the State used false testimony against him.

Ordinarily, we synopsize the evidence where the point is raised that outright reversal is required because guilt beyond a reasonable doubt was not proven as a matter of law. However, here, the point narrows down as to whether the eyewitnesses were credible — as a matter of law. One witness’ identification was positive. The robbery had occurred in daytime without…