State v. Bruggeman

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that closing arguments may be taken into account when considering the adequacy of a jury instruction
• concluding the “error was not fatal” after determining “the final arguments . . . clarified any possible misunderstanding” (internal citations omitted)
• stating that we do not evaluate jury instructions out of context and the “[c]losing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions”
• “Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”
• “Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.”
• \Closing arguments of counsel may be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of jury instructions.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).