Himes v. Schnably-Vickers

How courts have described this case

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

• defendant entitled to jury instruction on affirmative defense only if there is sufficient evidence for rational juror to find all elements of defense established by preponderance of evidence
• “no rule of law prevents a jury from being charged, when requested, on the defense of extreme emotional disturbance simply because the defendant has testified that he or she was not upset”
• defendant’s presentation of inconsistent defenses may be “self-penalizing . . . because it will . . . encourage jury skepticism about his entire defense” [citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted] [Borden, J., concurring]
• “[t]he fact that one defense is on the theory that [the] accused did not commit the offense . . . does not deprive him of the right to avail himself of other defenses” [internal quotation marks omitted]
• applying standard to affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance
• applying standard to affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).