People v. Pertz

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that motions made in the reviewing court are open for reconsideration
• noting that motions made in the reviewing court are open for reconsideration
• “[t]he question of defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime was a question of fact to be determined by the jury”
• \[t]he question of defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime was a question of fact to be determined by the jury\
• because the expert did not observe the defendant on the night of the victim’s murder, “it would have been impossible for him to opine with a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric certainty” whether the defendant acted intentionally
• because the expert did not observe the defendant on the night of the victim’s murder, “it would have been impossible for him to opine with a reasonable degree of medical and psychiatric certainty” whether the defendant acted intentionally

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).