Lainhart v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that cumulative effect of several errors, including improper vouching, constituted reversible error
• concluding that the trial court committed fundamental error by failing to instruct the jury that it was required “to reach a unanimous verdict as to which crime, if any, the defendant committed”
• concluding that by charging alternate victims in a single count, the State improperly joined several alternative crimes, and therefore trial court erred in failing to instruct jury that they must reach unanimous decision as to which crime, if any, defendant committed
• noting that if, viewed as a whole, the State’s evidence would have been sufficient to sustain the judgment, retrial does not offend double jeopardy principles
• concluding it was improper for the prosecutor to suggest police officers would testify reliably because “they’d be putting their badge at risk” if they didn’t
• concluding it was improper for the prosecutor to suggest police officers would testify reliably because “they’d be putting their badge at risk” if they didn’t

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).