State v. Imbruglia

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that in that case “there was no error in the trial justice’s denial of defendant’s request that the particular phraseology proposed by defendant be employed” because he “ ‘fairly covered’ the concept expressed by those words”
• upholding the denial of a motion to suppress based on the array containing photos of six white men of similar ages with similar facial hair
• affirming the denial of a motion to suppress after the trial justice relied, in part, on the “disclaimer document” shown to the witness
• finding no error in a set of jury instructions in which trial justice “‘fairly covered’ the concept expressed by [the proposed phraseology]”
• “If the trial justice concludes that he or she would have reached the same result as the jury did or that reasonable minds could differ as to the result, the motion for a new trial must be denied.”
• “If the trial justice concludes that he or she would have reached the same result as the jury did or that reasonable minds could differ as to the result, the motion for a new trial must be denied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).