Rusk v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
Wilner, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which Morton, Moylan, Moore and MacDaniel, JJ., join, at page 484 infra.
We are called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence to convict for rape. Whatever the law may have been before, it is now clear that our standard must be: Is the evidence sufficient for a finder of fact to conclude that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979). We hold that the evidence was not sufficient. In making this review we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Jackson v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- The PEOPLE v. TaylorIllinois Supreme Court · 1971
- Rush v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1974
- Hazel v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1960
- State v. VerdoneSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1975
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. RuskCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
- State v. TemoneyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980
- Curry v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- Martin v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Blotkamp v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.