253 results for 'cat:"Jury Instructions"'.
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in sentencing defendant to life in the shooting death of another person. Defendant argued his rights were infringed by comments made during the trial, including by a cop who testified during guilt-innocence that the shooting was “absolutely not” justified, but even if this opinion testimony was improperly admitted, it “does not result in constitutional error,” not least because defendant did not timely object to it, and the jury rejected defendant’s mitigating arguments despite receiving proper instructions. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 08-23-00115-CR, Categories: Sentencing, Due Process, jury Instructions
J. Murphy finds the trial court properly found defendant guilty for breaking or entering. The victim's security video showed defendant exiting the victim's vehicle, from which he had removed the battery after noticing his keys were missing. The state presented sufficient evidence of criminal intent and not merely that defendant broke into the vehicle. The jury could reasonably infer defendant was preparing to steal the car, which would not start due to the removed battery. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Murphy , Filed On: January 17, 2024, Case #: CR-22-614, Categories: Evidence, Theft, jury Instructions
J. Markle finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of rape and aggravated sodomy. The trial court did not commit any error by failing to instruct the jury on attacking a witness's credibility. Evidence of defendant's prior statutory rape conviction was correctly admitted because it was relevant to defendant's identity and intent. Defendant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Court of Appeals, Judge: Markle, Filed On: January 4, 2024, Case #: A23A1753, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, Sex Offender, jury Instructions
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Aoyagi finds trial court properly declined to declare a mistrial after a witness vouched for the complainant that contributed to defendant’s conviction for two counts of first-degree sodomy. “The court took appropriate corrective action to address the situation, including striking the testimony, giving a detailed curative instruction, and giving a final instruction that reiterated the jury’s singular responsibility for making credibility determinations.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Aoyagi, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: A176792, Categories: Sex Offender, Child Victims, jury Instructions
J. Clark finds that the lower court improperly convicted defendant of drug possession after cocaine was found in his backpack during a traffic stop. Defendant should have been granted a jury instruction on a lesser included possession offense because his explanations for his presence in town, the cocaine, and the weight scale plausibly countered the intent-to-sell element of the original charge. Reversed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Clark, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: 112202, Categories: Drug Offender, jury Instructions
J. McKinnon finds that the trial court gave the jury in defendant's sexual intercourse without consent trial the wrong definition of "knowingly" for the "without consent" element. It said the crime involves an act with a high probability that the other person does not consent. Instead, the crime requires that he knowingly had intercourse without the other person's consent. Reversed.
Court: Montana Supreme Court, Judge: McKinnon, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: DA 21-0372, Categories: Sex Offender, jury Instructions
J. Maraman partially finds the lower court properly convicted defendant of the sexual assault of a 16-year-old. The prosecution did not vouch for the victim in a statement about her memory of the incident, as he was referencing evidence and there is sufficient evidence that the victim was physically helpless and unable to communicate properly due to severe intoxication. The jury’s consent instruction was also therefore proper, though the instruction regarding aiding and abetting was not. The instruction did not include that aiding abetting includes demonstrating specific intent of defendant and the two friends he committed the assault with, and the omission may have caused the jury to convict defendant of a separate assault charge. Affirmed in part.
Court: Guam Supreme Court, Judge: Maraman, Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: CRA21-14, Categories: Sex Offender, Assault, jury Instructions
[Consolidated, redacted.] J. Sabatino finds that the trial court properly convicted defendants of armed robbery of Poppie's Deli based on surveillance video that captured defendants taking the victim out of the building. Defendant was not prejudiced by the decision allowing the jury to view the video several times in slow motion because the court exercised proper discretion, and video playback occurred in open court within the presence of counsel. Affirmed.
Court: New Jersey Appellate Division, Judge: Sabatino , Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: A-0377-20, Categories: Evidence, Robbery, jury Instructions
J. Freyre finds the failure by the trial court to include a complicity instruction during defendant's trial on a murder charge constituted a structural error. While the jury found him guilty of second-degree murder, it found he did not use a deadly weapon, which is entirely inconsistent with the state's theory of the case that defendant was the shooter. Therefore, the state failed to prove every element of the murder charge and defendant's conviction must be vacated.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Freyre, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 2023COA121, Categories: Murder, jury Instructions
J. Boggs finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Defendant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected by the trial court's failure to give the jury an instruction on no duty to retreat. The trial court correctly gave the jury a sequential unanimity instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense of murder. Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's alleged deficiencies. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Boggs, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: S23A0906, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, Murder, jury Instructions
J. Pinson finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant of murder. Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's convictions and to allow the jury to reject defendant's theory of self-defense. The trial court correctly instructed the jury on simple assault and defendant failed to show that the trial court committed any error in failing to charge the jury on the lesser offenses of felony or misdemeanor involuntary manslaughter. Defendant failed to show that his trial counsel's performance was deficient. Affirmed.
Court: Georgia Supreme Court, Judge: Pinson, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: S23A0802, Categories: Ineffective Assistance, Murder, jury Instructions
J. Harbison finds the superior court erred by giving the wrong jury instruction for defendant, convicted of violating a protective order. “The court’s error deprived Hughes of a meaningful opportunity to present his defense.” Reversed.
Court: Alaska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harbison, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: A-13683, Categories: jury Instructions
[Consolidated.] J. Green affirms three juvenile defendants’ adjudications for resisting arrest, but vacates one of the defendant’s adjudication for assault and battery of a police officer. The self-defense instruction to the jury included language pertaining to deadly force even though the defendant didn’t use deadly force, and it failed to include information about defense of another, even though the defendant threw a punch at an officer after the officer blocked him as he attempted to check on his friend.
Court: Massachusetts Court Of Appeals, Judge: Green, Filed On: December 15, 2023, Case #: 22-P-787, Categories: Juvenile Law, Assault, jury Instructions
J. Moore finds that defendant's murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of implied malice: high blood-alcohol level, predrinking intent to drive, knowledge of the hazards of DUI and highly dangerous driving. Also, he failed to show that vehicular manslaughter is a lesser included offense of a murder charge, and the trial court was not obligated to give the jury an instruction on the lesser related offense of gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Moore, Filed On: December 12, 2023, Case #: G061812, Categories: Dui, Vehicular Homicide, jury Instructions
J. Duncan finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for prescribing pain medication without a legitimate purpose. Defendant was the only doctor working for the "pill mill." Several co-conspirators and the owner of the operation posing as a pain management clinic pleaded guilty, testifying against the physician. The jury was presented with overwhelming proof defendant knew the prescriptions he wrote were medically unauthorized, and he cannot show any proposed error in jury instruction effected his substantial rights. Affirmed.
Court: 5th Circuit, Judge: Duncan, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 22-20515, Categories: Drug Offender, Evidence, jury Instructions
J. Fox finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant of aggravated vehicular homicide. Defendant claims that during trial she was denied the ability to give her proposed instructions to the jury, which would have told the jury to consider the victim's actions. Defendant claims this instruction was tied to her theory of defense and that the lower court should have allowed her to raise it, but her proposal is not considered a proper theory of defense instruction under the law and the lower court was correct in denying it. Affirmed.
Court: Wyoming Supreme Court, Judge: Fox, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: S-23-0059, Categories: Vehicular Homicide, jury Instructions
J. Bacon finds the trial court properly denied defendant's request for a provocation jury instruction because the driver of the other vehicle involved in the shooting was not the victim, and even if he had been, erratic driving is insufficient to require such an instruction. Furthermore, although defendant had been threatened by the driver of the other vehicle and knew he had guns, there was a vehicle in between the two and no shots had been fired at the time defendant opened fire, all of which prevented the issue of a self-defense instruction. Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court, Judge: Bacon, Filed On: December 4, 2023, Case #: S-1-SC-39211, Categories: Firearms, Murder, jury Instructions
J. Biles finds a lower court properly convicted a defendant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against her ex-husband's girlfriend. The defendant argued that the lower court erred in refusing to instruct a jury on a lesser included offense of simple assault. However, the State presented sufficient evidence in court that the jury instruction would have changed the outcome of her trial.
Court: Kansas Supreme Court, Judge: Biles, Filed On: December 1, 2023, Case #: 123,723, Categories: Assault, Weapons, jury Instructions
J. Ortega finds that while the trial court plainly erred by failing to instruct the jury that a culpable mental state attached to the “substantial risk of physical injury” element of resisting arrest, the error was harmless. “The jury’s findings that the defendant knew that his conduct was assaultive…indicated that the jury would not have found that the defendant was unaware of the risk of physical injury posed by his conduct.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Ortega, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: A178813, Categories: Resisting Arrest, jury Instructions
J. Pryor finds that the district court properly convicted defendants of conspiracy to distribute and dispense controlled substances not for a legitimate medical purpose and not in the usual course of professional practice. However, one defendant was improperly convicted of distributing controlled substances not for a legitimate medical purpose and outside the usual course of professional practice. Defendants were doctors who participated in a pill mill scheme. The district court's instructions to the jury on the substantive distribution counts against one defendant were improper in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in United States v. Ruan. The district court's error likely affected defendant's substantial rights. Affirmed in part.
Court: 11th Circuit, Judge: Pryor, Filed On: November 29, 2023, Case #: 20-13973, Categories: Drug Offender, jury Instructions
J. Mathis finds the trial court's jury instructions during defendants' trial on conspiracy to harbor illegal immigrants for commercial gain included language that properly defined the term "harbor." The revised version of the Immigration Act does not require knowing or willful acts on the part of criminal defendants. Additionally, even if the court had adopted defendants' version of the instruction, there was overwhelming evidence to establish the mens rea and find them guilty, including that the four Mexican immigrants lived in defendants' basement and were told to "not go outside or make any noise" at the risk of being deported by the government. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Mathis, Filed On: November 28, 2023, Case #: 22-5516, Categories: Evidence, Immigration, jury Instructions
J. Mortensen finds that the trial court did not impermissibly broaden the jury instructions in defendant's communications fraud trial to charge him with a different offense than those charged through the state's information. The removal of the phrase "to defraud another" narrowed, not broadened, the charge, so the change was not a constructive amendment to the instructions. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Mortensen, Filed On: November 24, 2023, Case #: 20210838-CA, Categories: Fraud, Restitution, jury Instructions