Lattisaw 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 trial court erred by enrolling guilty verdict and not taking steps to cure ambiguity after, in response to poll asking whether jurors agreed with verdict as announced by foreperson, juror gave ambiguous response, “Yes, with reluctance”
• determining that ambiguity existed in the verdict when juror answered, “Yes, with reluctance” in response to poll asking whether jurors agreed with verdict as announced by foreperson
• determining that ambiguity existed in the verdict when juror answered, “Yes, with reluctance” in response to poll asking whether jurors agreed with verdict as announced by foreperson
• determining that ambiguity existed in the verdict when juror answered, “Yes, with reluctance” in response to poll asking whether jurors agreed with verdict as announced by foreperson
• stating general rule that trial judge should not accept verdict that is “ambiguous, inconsistent, unresponsive, or otherwise defective”
• juror’s response of “Yes, with reluctance,” was ambiguous and required trial judge to take corrective action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).