recognizing that “the State is entitled to prove all of the relevant circumstances in such manner as it sees fit, within the .rules of evidence” and upholding a trial court’s refusal, to accept a defendant’s stipulation to certain. facts which the defendant offered in an effort to preclude the admission of damaging testimony
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “the State is entitled to prove all of the relevant circumstances in such manner as it sees fit, within the .rules of evidence” and upholding a trial court’s refusal, to accept a defendant’s stipulation to certain. facts which the defendant offered in an effort to preclude the admission of damaging testimony
- holding that the trial judge did not err by refusing to accept defendant’s offer to stipulate the identity of all property when the defendant made the offer in an effort to eliminate highly emotional and prejudicial testimony
- stating that it was improper for prosecutor to tell jury that defense counsel was “trying to throw sand in the eyes of the jury” and “b lowing smo ke in the face of the jury”
- holding that Eighth Amendment error in minimizing role of the jury in a capital case is subject to harmless error analysis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
Defendant’s petition to rehear presents three issues that were fully argued, considered by the Court and dealt with in the opinion. The fourth issue lists seven items that defendant classifies as errors recognized by the Court in the released opinion, and asserts that “the combination of errors ... deprived defendant of a fair trial.” Some of the items were merely violations of the “better practice” rules. We have given careful consideration to defendant’s contention and are of the opinion that the total errors in this record are harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
The petition to rehear is denied.