People v. MacRi

How courts have described this case

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

• holding it unnecessary to follow Florida’s heightened premeditation standard because of the “preconceived plan, scheme or design” language contained in section 9 — l(b)(ll)
• holding that “a prosecutor’s comments in closing argument will result in reversible error only when they engender ‘substantial prejudice’ against the defendant to the extent that it is impossible to determine whether the verdict of the jury was caused by the comments or the evidence”
• noting that any alleged error resulting from prosecutor’s argument would have been cured by the trial court’s jury instructions
• noting that any alleged error resulting from the prosecutor’s argument would have been cured by the trial court’s jury instructions
• holding it unnecessary to follow Florida’s heightened premeditation standard because of the “preconceived plan, scheme or design” language contained in section 9–1(b)(11)
• holding that “a prosecutor’s comments in closing argument will result in reversible error only when they engender ‘substantial prejudice’ against the defendant to the extent that it is impossible to determine whether the verdict of the jury was caused by the comments or the evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).