Runion 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, for prior consistent statements to be admissible, they “must have been made at a time when the declarant had no motive to fabricate”
• recognizing that self-defense is not available to an original aggressor
• providing that district courts should tailor self- defense jury instructions to the facts of the case
• noting that circumstances justifying self-defense \must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person placed in a similar situation\
• presuming that the Legislature agreed with this court's interpretation where the Legislature subsequently amended a statute but did not change the language that this court interpreted
• noting that when the Legislature has amended a statute without changing language previously interpreted by this court, it is presumed the Legislature approved the court's interpretation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).