holding that the instruction that the “ ‘defendant does not have the burden of proving himself innocent’ ” sufficiently conveyed the third principle
How later courts described this case
- holding that the instruction that the “ ‘defendant does not have the burden of proving himself innocent’ ” sufficiently conveyed the third principle
- where trial court admonished prospective jurors that “ ‘defendant does not have the burden of proving himself innocent,’ ” it sufficiently conveyed the principle that the defendant was not obligated to present any evidence on his behalf
- victim’s testimony that defendant used his penis to touch her in her butt was sufficient to establish that the defendant’s penis had touched the victim’s anus
- asking jurors whether they had "difficulties" with the propositions was another way of asking whether they understood
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JUSTICE McLAREN, specially concurring:
I specially concur because I have a concern regarding the relevance and admissibility of the alleged syndrome postulated by Dr. Summit. If Dr. Meyer is to be believed, this is neither an accredited syndrome nor a scientific tool to aid the trier of fact. Rather, it is a tool to aid the counselor in rehabilitating the victim. If the trial court had determined that Dr. Meyer’s testimony was credible and preponderant, or that Dr. Summit did not believe his postulated syndrome was formulated to be utilized by courts, then I believe it would have been an abuse of discretion to admit evidence of this syndrome. Giving deference to the court’s assessment of credibility, I do not believe the record establishes that evidence of the syndrome was inadmissible. However, there may come a day when a court determines that the weight of the evidence regarding relevance and admissibility will result in a denial of this alleged syndrome as a legal tool and an affirmation that it is solely a counseling tool.