Brewer, Sean Christopher

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the trial court’s instruction to “move on” was not a ruling
• concluding that the trial court’s instruction to “move on” was not a ruling
• concluding that because the “complaint was made after the testimony of the State’s final witness . . . [the] request was clearly not timely, . . . [and] the requirements for preservation were not met.”
• observing that the rules of appellate procedure require that “the complaining party must make a timely, specific request that the trial court refuses”
• observing that the rules of appellate procedure require that “the complaining party must make a timely, specific request that the trial court refuses”
• stating appellate courts “do not combine complaints to meet the requirements for preservation; we view each complaint individually”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).