Commonwealth v. Donkor

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “jury’s ability to reject evidence [is not a proper] substitute for the evidentiary support required to grant a defendant’s request for an instruction on [self-defense]”
• finding the Court of Appeals erred “in treating the jury’s ability to reject evidence as a substitute for the evidentiary support required to grant a defendant’s request for an instruction” and reinstating the conviction
• applying the same principle to a proffered instruction for malicious wounding
• “[T]he jury’s ability to reject evidence [does not operate] as a substitute for the evidentiary support required to grant a defendant’s request for an instruction on a lesser-included offense.”
• the victim receiving a cut “four to six inches long” and requiring “70 to 80 sutures to close”
• “The crime of malicious wounding lacks the severity and permanence elements required for the offense of aggravated malicious wounding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).