State v. Labanowski

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that neither “ ‘acquittal first’ ” nor “ ‘unable to agree’ ” type of instruction was erroneous as matter of law
• concluding that an \unable to agree\ instruction \allows the jury to correlate more closely the criminal acts with the particular criminal conviction\ and \promotes the efficient use of judicial resources\ by reducing the likelihood of mistrials
• noting that unable to agree instructions serve a variety of purposes, among them reducing the incidence of hung juries
• concluding that an “unable to agree” instruction “allows the jury to correlate more closely the criminal acts with the particular criminal conviction” and “promotes the efficient use of judicial resources” by reducing the likelihood of mistrials
• noting that unable to agree instructions serve a variety of purposes, among them reducing the incidence of hung juries
• noting that unable to agree instruc- 1 The Washington Supreme Court recently decided two cases with fac- tual circumstances more closely related to Brazzel’s. In State v. Linton, 132 P.3d 127 (Wash. 2006

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).