There was legally sufficient evidence of guilt and the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. There was overwhelming circumstantial evidence of defendant's identity as the arsonist, including his financial motive, his sole opportunity to set the fire, and his suspicious conduct observed only minutes before the fire was set.
The court properly exercised its discretion in limiting defendant's cross-examination of a witness and in precluding the testimony...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
