Easley, Damian Demitrius

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that under Rule 44.2(b) trial court’s error was not reversible in part because “the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict was substantial”
• holding that, while the error in the case before it constituted non-constitutional error, “[t]here may be instances when a judge’s limitation on voir dire is so substantial as to warrant labeling the error as constitutional error”
• stating that trial court “is in a unique position to measure the venireper-son’s sincerity, comprehension[,] and demeanor”
• holding 6 that when trial court erroneously prohibits specific question, rather than entire proper legal concept, it is nonconstitutional error
• noting that when such an error “rises to the level of constitutional magnitude, the constitutional provision offended is . . . the ability to present a defense, not necessarily the right to counsel”
• finding no harmful error for restriction on counsel’s preferred method of describing reasonable doubt when he could approach question in a different way

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).