Zomerfeld v. Noto (2012)
Pursuant to Midlands Rules of Evidence 104(a), when evaluating the admissibility of evidence, a trial court is permitted to rely on both admissible and inadmissible evidence. The use of underlying inadmissible evidence does not make that inadmissible evid
State v. Monarch (1904)
In a criminal case, the burden of proof is on the State and never shifts to the defendant. The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to each and every element of the offense(s) alleged.
State v. Sarobe (1981)
Per State v. Monarch, the State's burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt applies to each and every element of the crime charged. This burden, however, does not operate on the many subordinate, evidentiary, or incidental facts as distinguishe
State v. Vargas and Field (2015)
A criminal defendant is never required to present evidence or even offer an alternative theory of the crime. If a defendant does so, however,
failure of the defense to offer evidence in support of its theory of the case. Moreover, such
a prosecutor may co
State v. Matthys (2016)
Revisiting State v. Vargas and Field, the court reiterated that during a closing argument, a prosecutor may not suggest that the defendant needed to provide evidence in order to be
found not guilty.
State v. Soderberg (2017)
Revisiting State v. Vargas and Field, the court reminded counsel that during cross examination, prosecutors may call into question the existence of documents that the
defendant purports to exist but has not produced for trial. In addition, it is not impro
State v. Nelson (2002)
Even if the State elects not to discuss at trial a particular charge or element included in its indictment or bill of particulars, the defendant still may present evidence to rebut that charge or element The State may not argue irrelevance of the defendan
Kleynman v. Corrado (1945)
Unlike other jurisdictions, the victim in a criminal case in Midlands can be sequestered under Midlands Rule of Evidence 615.
Richey v. Bartlett (2002)
In all trials, fact finders may rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness personally did, saw, or heard. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence from which the fact finder may i
Roytman v. Zadie & Zoe's Pet Supplies (2000)
Midlands' Circuit Courts are not bound by the rulings of their sister Circuit Courts in other counties; however, the decisions of sister Circuit Courts in other counties have persuasive value.
State v. Class (Midlands Cir. Court Breckinridge County 2013)
The defendant was charged with murder and the prosecution offered evidence that an alleged co-conspirator, who is being tried separately, previously attempted to kill the victim without the defendant's involvement. The defendant objected under Rule 403. T
State v. Sommers (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2015)
The defendant was charged with armed robbery of a bank and the prosecution attempted to offer evidence that a co-conspirator, who is being tried separately, plotted to rob the same bank with individuals who were not involved in the alleged robbery in ques
State v. Lowe (1985)
A criminal defendant's decision to exercise the constitutionally protected right not to testify in his or her own defense may not be commented upon by the State either explicitly or implicitly. However, if the defendant does choose to testify, his or her
State v. Poole (2014)
Generally, it is improper for the prosecutor to comment at trial upon a defendant's invocation of his or her privilege against self-incrimination. This rule extends to a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's refusal to answer police questions or decision
Davis v. Adams (1993)
Under the Midlands Rules of Evidence, trial judges must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant but reliable. In determining whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable to be admitted, judges should con
Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994)
In assessing reliability under Davis v. Adams, judges should consider, among other factors, whether the theory or technique has been or can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, whether it has a known error rate, and whe
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997)
Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997)
Midlands Rule of Evidence 703 does not afford an expert unlimited license to testify or present a chart in a manner that simply summarizes the testimony of others without first relating that testimony to some "specialize
America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles (2009)
Although practices may be different in other jurisdictions, in Midlands it is entirely possible for an out-of-court statement by a person who is or will be testifying in a particular trial to be excluded by the general rule against hearsay. Subject to Rul
State v. Capaldi (1987)
In a criminal case, a police officer is not considered a "party opponent" for the purpose of admissibility of a statement made by that officer under Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). This does not preclude the admissibility of the officer's statement u
State v. Compton (2003)
The business-records hearsay exception of Midlands Rule of Evidence 803(6) cannot be used as a "back door" to introduce evidence that would not be admissible in a criminal case under the public-records hearsay exception of MRE 803(8)(b). Thus police repor
Illiadis v. State (1987)
Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) may be invoked in only one direction in a criminal case. Specifically, Rule 801(d)(2) permits the State to offer statements by a criminal defendant. The rule does not permit a defendant to offer statements from him- or
State v. Chambliss (1985)
Criminal conspiracy to commit a given crime occurs when a person agrees with another or others to commit an offense, attempt to commit an offense, solicit the commission of an offense, or aid another in the planning or commission of an offense.
State v. Owens (2010)
For a statement to qualify under the hearsay exclusion of Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), the proponent must establish the existence of said conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the statements may be admitted conditionally s
State v. Alston-Harmon and Maples (2015)
An individual need not be charged with conspiracy for their statements to qualify under the hearsay exclusion of Midlands Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
State v. Mendoza (2015)
A public record of a criminal conviction is not a police report and, thus, is not excluded by Midlands Rule of Evidence 803(8)(ii).
State v. Campbell (2007)
In Midlands, all criminal trials are bifurcated with a guilt phase followed by a penalty phase. It is improper for an attorney to comment on sentencing or discuss potential penalties during the guilt phase of the trial. Such conduct is grounds for a mistr
State v. Parsons (1983)
During the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial, evidence is not relevant if it is directed solely to the penalty to be given to the defendant if found guilty.
Filteau v. Wanek (1992)
As long as the proponent of the statement produces evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find that a given person made a particular statement, the court must assume for the purposes of assessing the statement's admissibility that the statement w
Ginger v. Heisman (2015)
Emails or text messages are properly authenticated when the proponent of the evidence has produced evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would allow a reasonable jury to determine the author of the message.
State v. Guliuzza's Franks and Beans, LLC (1977)
Pursuant to Midlands Rule of Evidence 104(a), courts may consider custodial documents, such as clerks' certifications or affidavits of records keepers, when determining the admissibility of other evidence without regard for the admissibility of the custod
State v. Delvaux (1986)
Under Rule 404, general evidence as to the defendant's good character or law-abiding nature is not admissible. However, under Rule 404(a)(1), a criminal defendant may offer certain evidence of a "pertinent" character trait. The requirement that evidence b
State v. McClain (2010)
MRE 609 does not categorically exclude evidence of a defendant's prior criminal conviction punishable by less than one year of imprisonment.
State v. Clement (2014)
The prosecution attempted to introduce evidence of a prior conviction of the defendant
under Rule 609. Defendant objected, arguing that the prior conviction of "theft by
deception" only carried a sentence of 4 months and was not a "crime of dishonesty." T
State v. Bitterly (Midlands Cir. Court Breckinridge County 2007)
Where defendant used a false ID to enter a night club, the court concluded the prior
conviction was admissible against the testifying defendant for the purpose of Rule 609.
State v. Peaches (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2009)
The trial court erred in allowing evidence of a testifying defendant's conviction for
shoplifting in 2000. In this case, the defendant walked into a liquor store and drank 5
forty ounce bottles of Natural Light beer before leaving the store without paying
State v. Jehl (Midlands Cir. Court Breckinridge County 2015)
In a trial for charges related to manufacturing cocaine, the state argued to admit evidence
of defendant's prior felony conviction for the manufacturing the drug "Everest." Since
defendant was not testifying, defendant argues that the evidence is not admi
State v. Hunley (Midlands Cir. Court Fairfax County 2017)
The trial court erred when it excluded evidence of a prior conviction of a defendant just
because the defendant did not testify. While Rule 609 does require that the defendant
testify for a prior conviction to be admissible, the trial court failed to cons