Please describe the "facts" presented by the State vs. the elements of Murder2.
You're a big boy, I'm sure that you're familiar with the evidence the prosecution has presented. Besides, I really don't feel like doing homework on a Friday night by typing up all those points.
I'm not saying that Zimmerman is likely to get convicted based on that evidence, nor am I saying that I personally believe Zimmerman to be guilty. I'm saying that for any motion to dismiss criminal charges at the end of the prosecution's case-in-chief, the prosecution's evidence is looked at in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Further, there is a presumption that the judge should rule on the law, but the jury should be the trier-in-fact.
Here's the applicable case law...
The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State, with the State being entitled to every reasonable inference of fact arising from the evidence. See State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563 (1984); State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594 (1980). This is true even if that same evidence also would support reasonable inferences of the defendant’s innocence. State v. Scott, 356 N.C. 591 (2002). Discrepancies and contradictions, even in the State’s evidence, are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant a dismissal. State v. Henderson, 276 N.C. 430 (1970). The ultimate question for the trial judge is “whether a reasonable inference of defendant’s guilt may be drawn from the circumstances.” State v. Lee, 348 N.C. 474, 488 (1998).