finding the circuit court’s failure to address an issue meant that issue was “not properly preserved for appellate review”
How later courts described this case
- finding the circuit court’s failure to address an issue meant that issue was “not properly preserved for appellate review”
- finding the lower court’s failure to address an issue meant that issue was “not properly preserved for appellate review”
- finding an issue the circuit court had not addressed below was “not properly preserved for appellate review”
- Schroder, J., concurring in result only, joined by Scott, J., and stating disagreement with overruling precedent holding that any object successfully intended to convince the victim it is a deadly weapon could support finding of deadly weapon
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHRODER, J.,
concurring in result • only.
I don’t agree with overruling Merritt, Kennedy, and Helpenstine. The majority’s new analysis would preclude a conviction for first-degree robbery if the defendant used an exact toy replica of a handgun, which would produce the same reaction in the victim — terror and surrender of the property. I believe such an interpretation *332 would lead to an absurd result not intended by the Legislature.
SCOTT, J., joins.