Auritt v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that evidence is properly excluded where it concerns issue not in dispute and is cumulative of evidence already before jury
• no error in failing to admit expert testimony on effects of narcotics when the State did not contest the fact that the victim was the initial aggressor
• “defendant’s presentation of inconsistent defenses may be self-penalizing . . . because it will . . . encourage jury skepticism about his entire defense” [citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted]
• no error in failing to admit expert testimony on effects of narcotics when the State did not contest the fact that the victim was the initial aggressor
• ‘[a]lthough it is true that a defendant is legally permitted to raise inconsistent defenses, when he does so a jury, applying its common sense, is entitled to view with skepticism the persuasiveness of all of the defenses’
• “The rule ... that such gross negligence may permit the defendant to escape liability when it was the sole cause of the death, strikes an appropriate balance between the notions of criminal responsibility for one’s conduct, on one hand, and intervening cause, on the other.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).