Search for: "Standard Jury Instructions in Crim. Cases" Results 1 - 20 of 84
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Aug 2018, 7:43 am by Jeff Welty
Last month, the court of appeals ruled that the pattern jury instruction for felony indecent exposure was inadequate given the facts of the case before it. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:02 am
For example, take PIK Crim. 3d 51.10 Penalty Not To Be Considered By The JuryYour only concern in this case is determining if the defendant is guilty or not guilty. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 9:20 am by Jeff Welty
Whether to admit expert testimony under these standards “is within the trial court’s discretion. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 9:20 am by Jeff Welty
Whether to admit expert testimony under these standards “is within the trial court’s discretion. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 11:49 am
We review allegations of jury charge error under the standard enunciated in Almanza v. [read post]
20 Apr 2021, 9:59 am by Patrick Barone
According to the standard jury instructions utilized in Michigan sex crimes cases it is up to the jury to judge and weigh a witness’s credibility. [read post]
16 May 2008, 5:09 am
Conversely, the trial court's instructions do not inform the jury as to a contrary standard for determining mitigating circumstances. [read post]
6 May 2022, 7:04 am by Shea Denning
Noting that to establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show that the suppressed evidence was material, the Court of Appeals concluded that the lost statement from an eyewitness did not meet this standard. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 7:45 pm by cdw
” As to the habeas petition, relief denied on whether “appellate counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to raise on direct appeal that the jury instructions constituted fundamental error by improperly instructing the jury on felony murder and other charges not contained in the grand jury indictment; and (2) failing to raise instances of prosecutorial misconduct. [read post]
16 Mar 2022, 8:07 pm by Jamie Markham
Crim. 308.10 deprived the defendant of a complete self-defense instruction, because the court concluded that the instruction the trial court gave adequately conveyed the substance of the defendant’s request. [read post]