commits reversible error (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

commits reversible error in District of Columbia

5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2004 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.

Followed or applied (6)

CaseFollowedCited
Howard D. Levine v. United Statesgreen
cadc · 1958 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1986–1994
2 sentences

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

22
Brown v. United Statesgreen
dc · 2001 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004In so ruling, the court declared that the mere fact that Wilson was a witness did not “make it open season on his entire mental history.” Appellants now contend that because their ability to question Wilson was thus limited, the trial court violated their Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. 12 Appellants rely chiefly on Brown v. United States, 766 A.2d 530 (D.C.2001), and Vereen v. United States, 587 A.2d 456 (D.C.1991), for the proposition that a trial court commits reversible error when it restricts cross-examination about the credibility of a witness, either by questioning the witness d

2004See Brown, 766 A.2d at 539 ; Vereen, 587 A.2d at 457-458 .

11
Campos v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1992 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 4.11 (4th ed. 1993). 10 The instruction required the jury to find that Holt “knew or had reason to believe” that Morris was a police officer, and that Holt had “acted voluntarily and on purpose,” before finding Holt guilty of assault on a police officer. *484 Although a trial court commits reversible error in refusing to instruct a jury adequately on a defendant’s sustainable theory of defense, a trial court “need not give the instruction in the precise language that is requested.” Campos v. United States, 617 A.2d 185, 187 (D.C.

11
West v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1992 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994This court has stated that "the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant's theory of the defense." Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

11
Stack v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1986 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994This court has stated that "the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant's theory of the defense." Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

11
Leftwitch v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1969 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986Although the instruction need not be given in the exact language requested, Fludd v. United States, 336 A.2d 539 , 541 n. 3 (D.C. 1975); Leftwich v. United States, 251 A.2d 646, 649 (D.C.1969), the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.

1986Although the instruction need not be given in the exact language requested, Fludd v. United States, 336 A.2d 539 , 541 n. 3 (D.C. 1975); Leftwich v. United States, 251 A.2d 646, 649 (D.C.1969), the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant's theory of the defense.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Vereen v. United States green
dc · 1991
2 sentences

2004In so ruling, the court declared that the mere fact that Wilson was a witness did not “make it open season on his entire mental history.” Appellants now contend that because their ability to question Wilson was thus limited, the trial court violated their Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. 12 Appellants rely chiefly on Brown v. United States, 766 A.2d 530 (D.C.2001), and Vereen v. United States, 587 A.2d 456 (D.C.1991), for the proposition that a trial court commits reversible error when it restricts cross-examination about the credibility of a witness, either by questioning the witness d

2004See Brown, 766 A.2d at 539 ; Vereen, 587 A.2d at 457-458 .

12004–2004
Gray v. United States green
dc · 1988
2 sentences

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

1994This court has stated that “the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.” Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 154 (D.C.1986); accord, West v. United States, 604 A.2d 422, 428 (D.C.1992); Gray, supra, 549 A.2d at 349 ; Levine v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282-83 , 261 F.2d 747, 748 (1958).

11994–1994
Fludd v. United States green
dc · 1975
2 sentences

1986Although the instruction need not be given in the exact language requested, Fludd v. United States, 336 A.2d 539 , 541 n. 3 (D.C. 1975); Leftwich v. United States, 251 A.2d 646, 649 (D.C.1969), the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant’s theory of the defense.

1986Although the instruction need not be given in the exact language requested, Fludd v. United States, 336 A.2d 539 , 541 n. 3 (D.C. 1975); Leftwich v. United States, 251 A.2d 646, 649 (D.C.1969), the trial court commits reversible error when it refuses to present adequately a defendant's theory of the defense.

11986–1986
United States v. Wendell Blount green
ca6 · 1973
2 sentences

1983Appellant urges us to follow United States v. Blount, 479 F.2d 650 (6th Cir. 1973), by holding that a trial court commits reversible error if it refuses to ask prospective jurors whether “they could accept the proposition[s] of law" relating to presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof.

1983Super.Ct.Crim.R. 7(c). [2] In objecting, the government called his testimony "irrelevant" — a frivolous point in view of the government's introduction of appellant's political leaflet into evidence, buttressed by the corroborating testimony of Officers Mayo and Mitchell. [3] Appellant urges us to follow United States v. Blount, 479 F.2d 650 (6th Cir.1973), by holding that a trial court commits reversible error if it refuses to ask prospective jurors whether "they could accept the proposition[s] of law" relating to presumption of innocence, reasonable doubt, and burden of proof.

11983–1983

Where else courts name it

TX 75 (1921–2026) OH 71 (1985–2026) OR 49 (2014–2026) FL 43 (1977–2026) IL 31 (1979–2025) SC 26 (1989–2014) MO 24 (1990–2019) IN 24 (1979–2020) WA 23 (1989–2025) AR 13 (1966–2025) PA 12 (1973–2026) AL 11 (1979–2016) CA 9 (1982–2022) GA 8 (1997–2026) NC 8 (1988–2005) WY 7 (1988–2012) KS 7 (1980–2022) AZ 6 (1981–2024) MS 6 (1996–2025) TN 5 (1995–2013) CO 5 (1992–2024) DC 5 (1983–2004) NY 4 (2014–2026) ND 4 (1999–2026) CT 3 (1994–2016) MI 3 (1971–1979) OK 3 (1979–2001) WV 3 (2000–2014) UT 2 (1993–2005) MT 2 (1925–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check