NATASA LANIERI SHAKESPEARE v. HOWARD JAY SHAKESPEARE

How courts have described this case

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

• instruction made clear that Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense
• “whether a defendant has been accorded his constitutional rights depends upon the way in which a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction”
• jury were entitled to infer malice from intentional use of deadly force [knife] to stab victim
• jury were entitled to infer malice from intentional use of deadly force [knife] to stab victim
• judge need not repeat a given instruction every time some confusion might result within the charge
• “Always remember that when you are dealing with inferences you never have to infer anything. You may, if you want to. But you do not have to draw any inferences whatsoever.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).