holding that there was insufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where evidence established that the victim was in a back bedroom, behind a closed door, and hiding under a bed when three shots were fired in the front living room
How later courts described this case
- holding that there was insufficient evidence of wanton endangerment where evidence established that the victim was in a back bedroom, behind a closed door, and hiding under a bed when three shots were fired in the front living room
- holding that a defendant’s failure to re-raise his Faretta motion to a new judge constituted abandonment of his request to proceed pro se or as co-counsel
- holding that a defendant had abandoned his initial request to self-represent when he failed to raise the issue before the trial judge after the original judge had passed on the issue until trial
- proof that defendants fired guns “near” other victims in plain view provided ample support for first-degree convictions related to those victims
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHRODER, J.,
Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part:
I do not believe that the trial court erred in denying Owens’ motion for a directed verdict on the charge of first-degree wanton endangerment of Latonia Lump-kins. I would therefore affirm Owens’ conviction on that count. Otherwise, I fully concur in the majority opinion.