People v. Fetterley

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a defendant could not “expressly acquiesce[ ] to the [trial] court’s handling of” a matter “and then raise it as an error before this Court”
• noting that literal constructions of a statute that produce unreasonable results inconsistent with the statute’s purposes are to be avoided
• holding that a defendant could not “expressly acquiesce[] to the [trial] court’s handling of” a matter “and then raise it as an error before this Court. . . . To hold otherwise would allow [the] defendant to harbor error as an appellate parachute”
• noting that an actor’s intent to deliver a controlled substance may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances and that minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient
• stating that a defendant is not allowed to waive objection to an issue at trial and then claim error on appeal because “[t]o hold otherwise would allow [a] defendant to harbor error as an appellate parachute”
• where a defendant acquiesces to the trial court’s handling of a matter, he may not raise it as error in this Court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).