Alvarado v. SC 142 W. 24 LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that, absent demonstrated prejudice, the omission of an element of the offense from jury instructions does not require a new trial
• holding that failure to instruct the jury on the “knowingly” element of violation of a domestic assault no contact order was plain error that affected defendant’s substantial rights, requiring reversal and remand for new trial
• explaining that a reasonable belief may negate the existence of a mental state essential to a charged crime
• stating that in determining whether the omission of an element of a charged offense was prejudicial, an appellate court “may consider, among other factors, whether: (1) the defendant contested the omitted element and submitted evidence to support a contrary finding, (2
• reversing and remanding for new trial, after considering plain-error test, where the jury instructions omitted the “knowingly” element
• reaffirming “that the omission of an element of a crime in a jury instruction does not automatically require a new trial”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).