v. Donald

Summary

The court held that inference stacking is not automatically fatal to a criminal sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim; instead, it is one factor in assessing whether the evidence is substantial under the applicable test. Applying that standard, the court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported Donald’s conviction for knowingly violating the bail condition prohibiting him from leaving Colorado without permission. The court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded for further proceedings.