Carreker 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 because there was some evidence from which the jury could have found that both parties intended to resolve their differences by fighting each other with deadly weapons, the trial court did not err by giving a mutual-combat charge
• mutual combat charge authorized where evidence shows “both parties intended to resolve their differences by fighting each other”
• mutual combat charge authorized where evidence showed “both parties intended to resolve their differences by fighting each other”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).