Skip to main content

Smetana v. State

Citations

  • 991 S.W.2d 42
  • 1998 WL 648151

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding evidence sufficient to negate insanity defense even though there was conflicting lay and expert testimony
  • holding evidence sufficient to negate insanity defense even though there was conflicting lay and expert testimony

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ramey, Holcomb, Hadden

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.