State v. Canal

How courts have described this case

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

• holding when no objection is made to the jury instructions, the instructions become the law of the case for purposes of conducting our sufficiency-of-the-evidence review
• explaining that when a defendant does not “object to the instructions given to the jury at trial . . . the jury instructions become the law of the case for purposes of our review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence”
• “[Defendant] did not object to the instructions given to the jury at trial. Therefore, the jury instructions become the law of the case for purposes of our review of the record 4 for sufficiency of the evidence.”
• “[The defendant] did not object to the instructions given to the jury at trial. Therefore, the jury instructions become the law of the case for purposes of our review of the record for sufficiency of the evidence.”
• “Although the court could have phrased the instruction to say [as the defendant requested], ‘mere nudity does not constitute obscenity,’ Canal’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance because of his failure to object to the generally accurate instructions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).