finding that jurors could not testify regarding their alleged misunderstanding of what the term "life without parole" meant
How later courts described this case
- finding that jurors could not testify regarding their alleged misunderstanding of what the term "life without parole" meant
- the defense of duress requires the defendant to have committed a prohibited act or omission because of a reasonable belief that there was imminent danger of death or great bodily harm from another upon oneself, one's spouse, or one's child
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STRUBHAR, Judge:
Concur in Results.
[1 I concur in results only for the reason of stare decisis. I continue to believe that a trial court should provide a meaningful answer to questions from the jury when they ask about the meaning of life without parole.