State of Arizona v. Michael Jonathon Carlson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where a statement made in error was immediately preceded by the court’s instruction it was assumed that the jurors followed the instructions and therefore any error was harmless
• noting that because the defendant failed to object at trial to the imposition of consecutive sentences, his claim that such sentences were illegal would 10 STATE v. BUSTILLOS Decision of the Court be reviewed for fundamental error
• upholding exclusion of expert's testimony that defendant said he falsely confessed
• consecutive sentences do not violate double jeopardy when the defendant was sentenced separately because the crimes created separate harms
• consecutive sentences for kidnapping and felony murder of the same victim did not violate Section 13-116 or constitute double jeopardy
• consecutive sentences permissible for kidnapping and felony murder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).