Criminal Law Bulletin 1992: Vol 28 Index PDF
Preview Criminal Law Bulletin 1992: Vol 28 Index
1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX VOLUME 28 Editor’s Note: The cases in the Index have been classified to conform to the Criminal Law Digest (third edition). CONTENTS PART 1—STATE CRIMES 1. VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL STATUTES IN —Scientific tests GENERAL Kidnapping § 1.15 Severability of statutes Obscenity 3. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF SPECIFIC CRIMES Drug violations —Possession —Possession with intent to distribute § 5.05 Aijders and abettors Firearms violations 6. DEFENSES Vehicular homicide Intoxicated driving § 6.02 Entrapment PART II—STATE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS 7. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. GUILTY PLEAS § 7.03 Venue § 12.15 Nolocontendere or non vult § 12.40 Equivocal guilty plea 8. PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS § 12.50 —Court’s failure to advise defendant of consequences of § 8.00 Grand jury proceedings § 8.35 Pretrial proceedings 13. EVIDENCE 9. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION § 13.05 Presumptions and influences § 9.05 Probable cause ADMISSIBILITY AND WITNESSES 10. PRETRIAL MOTIONS § 10.20 Motionbsy indigent defendant ... 578 § 13.45 Character and reputation evidence 13. Proof of other crimes 11. DISCOVERY 13. Proof of other bad acts § 11.00 In general 13. Exhibits § 11.25 —Records 13.95 Opinion evidence 1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX Identification evidence VERDICT —DNA printing tests ; Privileged communications § 15.290 General verdicts .... Expert witnesses § 15.295 —lInconsistent verdicts Cross examination—right to use §1 5.305 Duty of trial judge to poll jury or witness’s prior statements conduct inquiry into juror § 13.245 —Impeachment by prior misconduct conviction § 15.325 § 13.255 —Impeachment by prior inconsistent statement § 13.265 —Impeachment for bias or 17. SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT § 13.315 Hearsay evidence SENTENCING § 13.317 —Agency exception ; § 13.321 —Videotaped testimony Right to separate sentence § 13.341 —Prior consistent statements as hearing where jury fixed substantive evidence punishment .... } § 13.375 —Res gestae and spontaneous Standards for imposing sentence 582 GREIAUAIMOIIR 5 c5 ix on nciesctoe anen ws PUNISHMENT WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY § 17.90 Credit for time spent in custody § 13.437 Shoeprint evidence prior to sentencing § 17.101 Imposition of restitution 14. TRIAL § 17.140 Multiple sentences—right to attach prior conviction § 14.20 Qualifications of prosecutor § 17.145 —Enhancement § 14.25 Disqualification of prosecutor.... § 14.35 Right to public trial Absence of defendant or counsel 580 18. APPEAL AND ERROR Conduct of defense counsel § 18.25 Right to counsel Right to waive jury trial $ 18.35 —Withdrawal of counsel Conduct of prosecutor ‘ oe —Defense counsel’s “‘opening § 18.135 Wrongful conviction the door’’ 19. PROBATION, PAROLE, AND PARDON 15. JURY PROBATION SELECTION § 19.00 Conditions for probation § 15.15 Systematic exclusion ofb lacks, ERs rian veuienasetshasecnemsesmeess e ae Exposure of jurors to prejudicial 20. PRISONER PROCEEDINGS publicity § 20.00 In-prison proceedings Sequestering the jury § 20.45 Postconviction relief INSTRUCTIONS 21. ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS Accomplice testimony Lesser included offenses FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS Punishment (or disposition following insanity acquittal) of § 21.35 Forfeiture proceedings—in no concern to jury general PART IIJ—FEDERAL CRIMES 24. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF SPECIFIC § 24.25 Civil rights violations CRIMES § 24.40 —Under color of law § 24.15 Bank-related crimes generally.... 583 § 24.45 Conspiracy 572 CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN § 24.65 Drug violations § 25.10 Insanity § 24.100 Firearms violations § 25.15 —Burden of proof § 24.105 —Interstate transport § 24.135 Hobbs Act § 24.160 Interstate racketeering 27. DEFENSES § 24.240 Securities regulation violations .. § 27.15 Entrapment 25. CAPACITY § 27.20 Immunity from prosecution PART IV—FEDERAL PROCEDURES 29. PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS 36. THE JURY § 29.00 Grand jury proceedings SELECTION 31. PRETRIAL MOTIONS § 36.10 Systematic exclusion of minority group members § 31.00 Sufficiency of indictment § 36.25 Conduct of voir dire § 31.10 —Severance § 36.30 Peremptory challenges 32. DISCOVERY INSTRUCTIONS § 32.00 Ingeneral § 36.55 Accomplice testimony § 36.65 Burden of proof § 36.70 Character evidence 33. GUILTY PLEAS § 36.85 Duty to charge on defendant’s § 33.00 Plea bargaining theory of defense § 33.05 —Right to enforce plea bargain .. 585 § 36.155 Charge on issues of law § 33.15 Accepting plea § 33.30 —Duty to advise of DELIBERATION consequences of plea § 36.195 Other unauthorized or improper conduct 34. EVIDENCE 37. POSTTRIAL MOTIONS ADMISSIBILITY AND WITNESSES § 37.00 Motion for new trial § 34.15 Relevancy and prejudice § 37.35 Federal habeas corpus § 34.60 Circumstantial evidence § 37.50 —Exhaustion of state remedies... 587 § 34.65 —Intent § 37.55 —Waiver or deliberate bypass ... 587 § 34.170 Cross-examination procedure .... § 37.65 —Procedure § 34.200 —Impeachment for prior illegal or immoral acts 38. SENTENCING AND PUNISHMENT § 34.220 Hearsay evidence § 34.235 —Declaration of co-conspirators 585 SENTENCING § 38.10 Presentence report 35. THE TRIAL § 38.30 Standards for imposing sentence. 587 § 35.25 Decisions of defense counsel as binding upon defendant PUNISHMENT § 35.50 Conduct of trial judge § 38.60 Credit for time spent in custody § 35.70 —Exclusion of evidence prior to sentencing § 35.95 Conduct of prosecutor § 35.100 Discretion to prosecute § 35.110 —Comments made during 39. THE APPEAL summation § 39.35 Scope of appellate review 1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX 40. PROBATION AND PAROLE 42. ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS § 40.25 Revocation of parole DEPRIVATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS 41. PRISONER PROCEEDINGS § 42.30 In general § 41.00 In general EXTRADITION § 41.05 Cruel and unusual treatment § 41.45 Other actions under Federal Civil § 42.45 Requirements Rights Act § 41. § 41. 5505 M—eIdmimcuanl ittrye atment for prisoner ... FORFEITURE § 41 .60 Prison regulations § 42.60 Ingeneral PART V—CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES 43. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS —Incorrect legal advice —Failure to introduce evidence GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION; GENERALLY or make objections § 43.00 Involuntariness and coercion CONFLICT OF INTEREST A SO MRE by Ae eee 590 § 43.45 Fruit of an earlier inadmissible 45.145 In general statement RIGHT TO CONFER WITH COUNSEL VIOLATION OF MIRANDA STANDARDS AS § 45.165 In general GROUNDS FOR EXCLUSION § 43.90 Waiver of Miranda rights § 43.105 —Effect of request for counsel... 590 46. CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT § 46.00 In general § 46.01 —lInterpretations by state courts 591 44. CONFRONTATION OF WITNESSES § 46.05 Death penalty S40.00 Unipeneralls ssi... sscccscwsescsceveds 590 § 46.10 —Statutory requirements § 44.05 —Interpretations by state courts 590 § 44.15 Co-defendant’s out-of-court statements 47. DOUBLE JEOPARDY § 44.20 —Admission subject to limiting 7.00 In general instructions —Interpretations by state courts 592 § 44.30 Opportunity to cross-examine .... Mistrials Crimes against separate 45. RIGHT TO COUNSEL sovereignties —Dual sovereignty doctrine SCOPE AND EXTENT OF RIGHT Implied acquittal GENERALLY Separate and distinct offenses .... —Same transaction................. : § 45.15 Absence of counsel during portion of proceedings § 45.25 Waiver 48. DUE PROCESS § 45.30 —Right to defend pro se § 48.00 In general ADEQUACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF § 48.05 —Drug violations COUNSEL 49. EQUAL PROTECTION § 45.110 Ineffectiveness § 45.115 —Interpretations by state courts 591 § 49.00 In general CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN 53. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND § 58.80 —Sufficiency of underlying EXPRESSION Fc NEHSPT ST ESS 594 § 53.00 In general § 58.100 —Necessity of obtaining a warrant § 58.132 Canine searches .................... 594 54. IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES § 54.10 Suggestiveness of identification CONSENT AND WAIVER procedure §5 8.170 In general 58. PROHIBITION AGAINST UNLAWFUL § 58.180 —Voluntariness of consent SEARCHES AND SEIZURES § 58.185 —Third-party consent SCOPE AND EXTENT OF RIGHT IN SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE IN GENERAL GENERAL § 58.200 Standing 8.03 Property subject to search 8.10 Property subject to seizure 8.15 —Plain view 59. PROHIBITION AGAINST SELF- 8.25 —Exigent circumstances INCRIMINATION 8.30 —Automobile searches 8.32 —Car passengers OCQLLL3 PPPPPP TESTIMONY AND RECORDS 8.35 —Airplane passengers 8.43 —lInventory searches § 59.30 Right to refuse examination by 8.50 Search by private person state psychiatrist ; Urinalysis 8.65 What constitutes an arrest OOCOLOPPPPP Se eCeRe en 60. RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL BASIS FOR MAKING SEARCH AND/OR SEIZURE § 60.05 Length of delay § 60.15 —Delay in instituting § 58.75 Search warrant prosecution 1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX PART I—STATE CRIMES 1. VALIDITY OF CRIMINAL STATUTES IN § 3.130 Firearms violations GENERAL New Jersey New Jersey’s forfeiture statute could be applied to motorist’s contraband § 1.15 Severability of statutes handguns when motorist did not comply with federal Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. Jn Florida Definition of ‘‘sexual conduct’’ ap- plicable to Florida law barring child sexual re Two Seized Firearms, 602 A.2d 728 (1992), 28 CLB 489. performances was overbroad, but offending portion was severable from remainder. Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (1991), 28 3.160 Fraud CLB 407. Arkansas Defendant cannot be convicted of fraudulent use of credit card if he does not obtain property thereby. Davidson v. State, 3. NATURE AND ELEMENTS OF 810 S.W.2d 327 (1991), 28 CLB 90. SPECIFIC CRIMES § 3.195 Vehicular homicide § 3.80 Drug violations California For purposes of gross vehicular Arkansas Delivering ‘‘counterfeit hashish’ manslaughter, gross negligence can be found was not a crime in Arkansas; therefore, the from overall circumstances of intoxication charge could not validate an arrest warrant alone, without regard to manner of driving. that would support search of defendant’s People v. Bennett, 819 P.2d 849 (1991), 28 premises. Abbott v. State, 819 S.W.2d 694 CLB 405. (1991), 28 CLB 407. § 3.265 Intoxicated driving § 3.85 —Possession California For purposes of gross vehicular Kansas Statute barring possession of con- manslaughter, gross negligence can be found trolled substance without affixing tax stamp from overall circumstances of intoxication is constitutional. State v. Berberich, 811 alone, without regard to manner of driving. P.2d 1192 (1991), 28 CLB 89. People v. Bennett, 819 P.2d 849 (Cal. 1991), 28 CLB 405. § 3.87 Possession with intent to distribute Maine A person may be convicted as an Minnesota Statute making possession of accomplice to operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. State v. Stratton, 591 “‘crack’’ cocaine more culpable than posses- A.2d 246 (1991), 28 CLB 92. sion of powder cocaine denies blacks equal protection under Minnesota constitution. State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886 (1991), § 3.270 —Scientific tests 28 CLB 403. Arizona Law enforcement officers, when New Jersey Intent to distribute drugs within obtaining a blood sample of a person suspect- 1,000 feet of school property is not prerequi- ed of driving under the influence of alcohol, site to conviction under statute barring pos- need not advise the suspect of his right to session of drugs with intent to distribute obtain a portion of the same sample, even while on or within 1,000 feet of school though the warning is necessary for breath property. State v. Invory, 124.N.J. 587, 592 samples. State v. Kemp, 813 P.2d 315 A.2d 205 (1991), 28 CLB 181 (1991), 28 CLB 91. 1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX § 3.275 Kidnapping robbery. State v. Sein, 590 A.2d 665 (1991), 28 CLB 88. Tennessee Kidnapping will not be found where an unlawful confinement, movement, or detention is incidental to accompanying felony and did not increase the risk of harm 5. PARTIES to the victim. State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (1991), 28 CLB 292. § 5.05 Aiders and abettors § 3.320 Obscenity California Getaway driver in robbery may be convicted of aiding and abetting robbery, Florida Definition of ‘‘sexual conduct’’ ap- and therefore, of being principal rather than plicable to Florida law barring child sexual mere accessory after the fact. People v. performances was overbroad, but offending Cooper, 53 Cal. 3d 1158, 282 Cal. Rptr. portion was severable from remainder. 450, 811 P.2d 742 (1991), 28 CLB 182. Schmitt v. State, 590 So. 2d 404 (1991), 28 CLB 407. Maine A person may be convicted as an accomplice to operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. State v. Stratton, 591 § 3.355 Rape A.2d 246 (1991), 28 CLB 92. § 3.365 —Consent Nebraska Consent or reasonable mistake as 6. DEFENSES to the age of the victim is not a defense to first-degree sexual assault on a child. State § 6.20 Entrapment v. Campbell, 473 N.W.2d 420 (1991), 28 CLB 176. Florida Basing informer’s sentence reduc- tion on amount of drugs seized due to infor- mation he furnished did not violate defen- § 3.370 Resisting arrest dant’s due process rights. State v. Hunter, Utah Common-law right to forcibly resist 586 So. 2d 319 (1991), 28 CLB 298. one attempting to effect an illegal arrest is Florida Requiring a defendant to prove the not relevant because in Utah, the common affirmative defense of entrapment beyond a law has been replaced by statute. State v. Gardiner, 814 P.2d 568 (1991), 28 CLB reasonable doubt does not violate the Florida or U.S. Constitution. Herrera v. State, 594 179. So. 2d 275 (1992), 28 CLB 490. § 3.375 Robbery Michigan Divided court ruled that subjective factors play a part in objective test for entrap- New Jersey Purse snatching ordinarily does ment. People v. Juillet, 475 N.W.2d 786 not involve sufficient force to constitute a (1991), 28 CLB 292. Part I—STATE CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, ANCILLARY PROCEEDINGS 7. JURISDICTION AND VENUE containing factuai accounts of the crime and § 7.05 Venue incriminating statements by defendants. Indiana Defendant was not entitled to a Eads v. State, 577 N.E.2d 584 (1991), 28 change of venue based on newspaper articles CLB 174. 577 CRIMINAL LAW BULLETIN 8. PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS inspection. State ex rel. Richards v. Foust, 477 N.W.2d 608 (1991), 28 CLB 402. § 8.00 Grand Jury Proceedings New Jersey State agency’s lack of investiga- tory resources will not sustain showing of 12. GUILTY PLEAS particularized need necessary to gain access to secret grand jury transcripts. In re Grand § 12.15 Nolo contendere or non vult Jury Testimony, 591 A.2d 614 (1991), 28 CLB 183. Rhode Island Recantations of complaining witnesses undermined factual basis of nolo § 8.35 Pretrial proceedings contendere plea when recantations were not credible. Fontaine v. State, 602 A.2d 521 California Enactment abolishing defen- (1992), 28 CLB 489. dant’s right to postindictment preliminary hearing is valid. Bowens v. Alameda County Superior Court, 820 P.2d 600 (1991), 28 § 12.40 Equivocal guilty plea CLB 402. § 12.50 —Court’s failure to advise defendant of consequences of plea 9. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION California When restitution fine is imposed that was not contemplated by the plea bar- § 9.05 Probable cause gain, defendant should be allowed to with- California Law allowing hearsay at prelimi- draw plea or fine should be reduced to $100 nary hearings is constitutional, but limits statutory minimum. People v. Walker, 819 must be placed on the use of such testimony. P.2d 861 (1991), 28 CLB 406. Whitman v. Santa Clara County Superior Court, 820 P.2d. 262 (1991), 28 CLB 403. Illinois Juvenile’s possession of $1,000 in 13. EVIDENCE cash did not constitute probable cause to believe a crime had been committed. In re § 13.05 Presumptions and inferences D.G., 581 N.E.2d 648 (Ill. 1991), 28 CLB 409. Connecticut Jury was properly instructed that they could draw unfavorable inference from defense’s failure to produce available 10. PRETRIAL MOTIONS witness to corroborate defendant’s alibi. State v. Grant, 602 A.2d 481 (1992), 28 CLB 489. § 10.20 Motions by indigent defendant North Carolina Indigent defendant seeking ADMISSIBILITY AND WITNESSES appointment of a hair, blood, and fingerprint expert must make a preliminary showing § 13.45 Character and reputation evidence that the matter calling for expert testimony will be a significant factor in the trial. State Georgia Mistrial granted when testimony v. Tucker, 329 N.C. 709, 407 S.E.2d 805 of prosecution witness improperly placed (1991), 28 CLB 177. defendant’s character in issue. Whitener v. State, 261 Ga. 567 407 S.E.2d 735 (1991), 28 CLB 177. 11. DISCOVERY § 13.50 Proof of other crimes § 11.00 In general Indiana Where there is evidence of self- defense, defendant in a homicide case may § 11.25 —Records testify as to victim’s prison record. Russell Wisconsin Common law rule provides that v. State, 577 N.E.2d 567 (1991), 28 CLB district attorney’s files are not open to public 174. 1992 CASE DIGEST INDEX Montana Other crimes evidence may be Iowa Expert witness can testify as to statisti- admitted not only to prove a common plan, cal probability of DNA testing. State v. scheme or system, but also as proof of mo- Brown, 470 N.W.2d 30 (1991), 28 CLB 92. tive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake § 13.170 Privileged communications or accident. State v. Matt, 814 P.2d 52 (1991), 28 CLB 85. California Statute abrogating psychothera- pist-patient privilege when necessary to South Dakota In habitual offender cases, warn potential victim of danger, applied state has initial burden of proving prior valid where victim was dead and trial was of convictions, but burden then shifts to defen- alleged perpetrator. People v. Wharton, 809 dant to show prior convictions are invalid. P.2d 290 (1991), 28 CLB 93. Stuck v. Leapley, 473 N.W.2d 476 28 CLB 175. § 13.195 Expert Witnesses § 13.55 Proof of other bad acts Colorado In some cases expert testimony on realiability of eyewitness identification may West Virginia In child abuse case, evidence be proper and trial court has discretion to of principal’s prior sexual acts are admissi- evaluate such testimony on a case-by-case ble in case against aider and abettor to estab- basis. Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1 lish that principal committed the crime. State (1991), 28 CLB 183. v. Lola Mae C., 408 S.E.2d 31 (1991), 28 CLB 178. South Carolina Expert testimony as to the reliability of eyewitness identification evi- dence is admissible. State v. Whaley, 406 § 13.90 Exhibits S.E.2d 369 (1991), 28 CLB 183. Washington Charts should not ordinarily be Virginia An expert witness may not give his sent to the jury room, but reversible error opinion on the precise or ultimate fact in does not occur unless the defendant was issue, which must be left to the finder of fact. prejudiced thereby. State v. Lord, 822 P.2d 177 (1991), 28 CLB 404. Llamera v. Commonwealth, 414 $.E.2d 597 (1992), 28 CLB 484. § 13.95 Opinion evidence § 13.230 Cross-examination—right to use Kentucky Testimony of police officer that witness’s prior statements accused was a ‘‘pedophile’’ was inadmissi- ble, because police officer was not qualified § 13.245 —Impeachment by prior conviction to give such an opinion. Dyer v. Common- wealth, 816 S.W.2d 647 (1991), 28 CLB New Mexico Prior conviction was admissible 294. to impeach defendant’s testimony, even though offense on which conviction was based occurred after offense for which he § 13.115 Identification evidence was being tried. State v. Trejo, 825 P.2d Colorado In some cases expert testimony on 1252 (1992), 28 CLB 486. reliability of eyewitness identification may be proper and trial court has discretion to § 13.255 —Impeachment by prior evaluate such testimony on a case-by-case inconsistent statement basis. Campbell v. People, 814 P.2d 1 (1991), 28 CLB 183. Massachusetts Prosecution’s substantive use in summation of testimony admitted solely to impeach witness justified setting aside § 13.151 —DNA printing tests of verdict. Commonwealth v. Rosa, 587 Arkansas Novel scientific evidence, such as N.E.2d 767 (1992), 28 CLB 492. results of DNA printing tests, are admissible if proponent proves reliability of the scieniif- § 13.265 —Impeachment for bias or motive ic evidence and the process underlying the calculations. Prater v. State, 820 S.W.2d Nevada Use of accomplice testimony will 429 (1991), 28 CLB 405. not be barred merely because prosecutor CR!MINAL LAW BULLETIN withholds benefit of bargain until after ac- 14. TRIAL complice testifies. Sheriff, Humboldt Coun- ty v. Acuna, 819 P.2d 197 (1991), 28 CLB 292. § 14.20 Qualifications of prosecutor § 13.315 Hearsay evidence § 14.25 —Disqualification of prosecutor California Law allowing hearsay at prelimi- Arkansas Prosecuting attorney was rot dis- nary hearings is constitutional, out limits qualified from prosecuting defendani merely must be placed on the use of such testimony. because he had assisted defendant earlier in Whitman v. Santa Clara County Superior preparing an affidavit against the victim. Court, 820 P.2d 262 (1991), 28 CLB 403. Chellette v. State, 824 S.W.2d 389 (1992), 28 CLB 484. § 13.317 —Agency exception Mississippi When the defendant’s former defense attorney became assistant district New York Interpreter, paid to deliver ‘‘pros- attorney, state had the heavy burden of ecutable’’ cases, wasn’: mere agent of po- showing that the accused’s confidentiality lice; therefore, police testimony as to what remained unscathed. Aldridge v. State, 583 interpreter said during drug deal was inad- So. 2d 203 (1991), 28 CLB i82. missible hearsay. People v. Romero, 581 N.E.2d 1048 (1991), 28 CLB 409. § 14.35 Right to public trial § 13.321 —Videotaped testimony Rhode Island Closure of individual voir dire examination of prospective jurors may have Indiana Statute specifying that 2 child wit- been unconstitutional infringement on the ness giving videotaped testimony be unable to see or hear defendant violates state corsti- press and public’s right of access to criminal tutional guarantee of face-to-face confronta- proceedings. Providence Journal Co. v. Su- tion with witnesses. Brady v. State, 575 perior Court, 593 A.2d 446 (1991), 28 CLB N.E.2d 981 (1991), 28 CLB 86. 87. § 13.341 —Prior consistent statements as § 14.50 Absence of defendant or counsel sul.stantive evidence North Carolina Defendant’s absence from Indiana Indiana Supreme Court limited ap- bench conferences between trial judge and plication of rule that prior out-of-court state- opposing counsel did not violate his constitu- ments, not under oath, were admissible as tional right to be present at every stage of substantive evidence. Modesitt v. State, 578 proceeding. State v. Buchanan, 410 S.E.2d N.E.2d 649 (1991), 28 CLB 295. 832 (1991), 28 CLB 403. § 13.375 —RKes gestae and spontaneous § 14.62 Conduct of defense counsel declarations Nevada Defense counsel could be sanctioned Washington Excited utterance, to qualify as for baseless motion suggesting that prosecu- hearsay exception, must have been made tor was seeking death penalty for political while the declarant was under stress of ex- reasons. Young v. Ninth Judicial Circuit citement. State v. Chapin, 826 P.2d 194 Dist. Court, 818 P.2d 844 (1991), 28 CLB (1992), 28 CLB 487. 293. WEICHT AND SUFFICIENCY § 14.70 Right to waive jury trial § 13.437 Shoeprint evidence New Jersey Defendant does not have consti- Illinois Shoeprint evidence, standing alone, tutional right to waive a jury trial and insist is sufficient to convict. People v. Campbell, of trial by the court. State v. Dunne, 590 586 N.E.2d 1261 (1992), 28 CLB 490. A.2d 1144 (1991), 28 CLB 88.
The list of books you might like
