holding that, where the trial court issued a limiting instruction to the jury prior to showing the video depicting the victim’s body, cautioning the jurors as to its narrow relevance and clearly instructing them not to allow the video to stir their emotions to the prejudice of the defendant, there was no error, since the jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions
How later courts described this case
- holding that, where the trial court issued a limiting instruction to the jury prior to showing the video depicting the victim’s body, cautioning the jurors as to its narrow relevance and clearly instructing them not to allow the video to stir their emotions to the prejudice of the defendant, there was no error, since the jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions
- concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting evidence regarding an eyewitness’s abuse of cocaine, as such evidence “would have served to unduly distract the attention of the jury from the main inquiry[,] and required the ascertainment of an unnecessary quantity of subordinate facts[.]” (quotation marks omitted)
- holding that prosecutor was commenting "not on appellant's post-arrest silence, but on his post-arrest statements" when prosecutor referenced appellant's statement "I'm keeping it to myself' and implied that certain conclusions could not be drawn from that statement
- concluding that the “appellant’s [post-arrest] spontaneous utterances were not rendered involuntary simply because he had a pair of handcuffs on his hands”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
With the exception of footnote 40, which relates to the Majority’s discussion of Appellant’s Batson claim, .1 join the Majority’s opinion.