State v. Reillo

Summary

The court held that appellate courts reviewing manifest-weight challenges must defer to the fact-finder's credibility determinations, departing from a de novo assessment of witness credibility. Applying that rule, it concluded that the victim's testimony was not so materially inconsistent, impeached, or fantastical as to be patently unbelievable, so the convictions were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court reversed the appellate judgment and remanded for consideration of the defendant's unresolved sufficiency assignment of error.