E.Z. v. DHS

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that evidence of the defendant’s prior crimes, which explained and placed in context the complaining witness’s statements and actions, was admissible
• stating, “[t]he appellant’s acts of violence or intimidation need not be done for the very purpose of taking the victim’s property to constitute robbery”
• \The law does not require that the use of force or the threatened imminent use of force be done for the very purpose of taking the victim’s property.\
• \The law does not require that the use of force or the threatened imminent use of force be done for the very purpose of taking the victim's property.\
• defendant was aware of victim’s knowledge of his past history of attacks on women, which explained her lack of resistance and which made it unlikely that he would have construed her actions as consent
• defendant was aware of victim's knowledge of his past history of attacks on women, which explained her lack of resistance and which made it unlikely that he would have construed her actions as consent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).