Evans v. Cook County State's Attorney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the requisite finding of separate victims for purposes of the imposition of consecutive sentences was inherent in the jury’s verdicts
• defendant’s planning of robbery, during which the victim was killed, was sufficient to convict defendant of felony murder
• where jury necessarily found that counts involved different victims, trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences on those counts
• the fact that the defendant’s offenses involved separate victims for the purpose of ORS 137.123(5)(b) was “inherent in the indictment and in the jury’s verdicts on those counts”
• “[A] reasonable juror may infer intent to interfere substantially with a victim’s freedom of movement from evidence that the defendant moved the victim a sub- stantial distance.”
• “There was a procedure under which [the] defendant could have asked to have the jurors reconsider their verdicts, but [the] defendant did not attempt to use that procedure.” (Citation and footnote omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).