5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Wheeler v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014“The central question for this court in its review of a challenged jury instruction is whether the instruction is an adequate statement of the law, and whether it is supported by evidence in the case.” Id. (citing Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2014“The central question for this court in its review of a challenged jury instruction is whether the instruction is an adequate statement of the law, and whether it is supported by evidence in the case.” Id. (citing Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
LAMONT L. BUSKEY and KEITH A. SIMMS v. UNITED STATESgreen1 sentence2019Buskey v. United States, 148 A.3d 1193, 1205 (D.C. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Luis Parrillagreen2 sentences2006In Virgin Islands v. Parrilla, 7 F.3d 1097, 1100 (3d Cir.1993), the court considered a statute that provided that "infliction of injury is presumptive evidence of the intent [to commit mayhem]." On "plain error" review, the court held the statute unconstitutional because there was no substantial certainty of a significant connection between the predicate fact (the injury) and the presumed fact (intent to commit mayhem). 2006In Virgin Islands v. Parrilla, 7 F.3d 1097, 1100 (3d Cir.1993), the court considered a statute that provided that “infliction of injury is presumptive evidence of the intent [to commit mayhem].” On “plain error” review, the court held the statute unconstitutional because there was no substantial certainty of a significant connection between the predicate fact (the injury) and the presumed fact (intent to commit mayhem). | 1 | 1 |
Sandstrom v. Montanagreen2 sentences1987II I see the question before us as “whether the challenged jury instruction[s] had the effect of relieving the state of the burden of proof ... on the critical question of petitioner’s state of mind.” Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 442 U.S. at 521 , 99 S.Ct. at 2458 . 1987II I see the question before us as “whether the challenged jury instruction[s] had the effect of relieving the state of the burden of proof ... on the critical question of petitioner’s state of mind.” Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 442 U.S. at 521 , 99 S.Ct. at 2458 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. United States
green
2 sentences2014“The central question for this court in its review of a challenged jury instruction is whether the instruction is an adequate statement of the law, and whether it is supported by evidence in the case.” Id. (citing Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C. 2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2014“The central question for this court in its review of a challenged jury instruction is whether the instruction is an adequate statement of the law, and whether it is supported by evidence in the case.” Id. (citing Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 238 (D.C.2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.