Marquardt 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 malicious destruction of property merged with burglary pursuant to fundamental fairness because the destruction of property was “clearly incidental” to the burglary
• concluding that, under the rule of lenity, any \doubt or ambiguity as to whether the legislature intended that there be multiple punishments for the same act or transaction will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses.\
• noting that battery includes kissing another person without consent
• declining to decide whether all 911 recordings are testimonial or nontestimonial, but holding that when primary concern is obtaining help, statement is nontestimonial
• declining to decide whether all 911 recordings are testimonial or nontestimonial, but holding that when primary concern is obtaining help, statement is nontestimonial
• “There must be ‘some evidence,’ to support each element of the defense’s legal theory before the requested instruction is warranted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).