State v. Crannell

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the request for consent to search did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights
• concluding that the request for consent to search did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights
• holding that the court properly allowed witness to disclose that defendant had admitted to car bombing only after defendant tried to show it was unreasonable for witness to fear defendant
• reiterating that where defendant fails to move for acquittal at trial’s end or in post-trial motion, issue is not preserved for appellate review, even when defendant moved for acquittal after State’s case
• reiterating that where defendant fails to move for acquittal at trial’s end or in a post-trial motion, issue is not preserved for appellate review, even when defendant moved for acquittal after State’s case
• rejecting defendant’s contention that identification of his automobile was impermissibly suggestive, quoting Carter with approval, and declining “to create a rule requiring police to provide a photo array of an object such as a car”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).