State v. Okumura

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, contrary to Chang, refusal to give an accomplice witness instruction is not, in every case, an abuse of discretion
• holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was cross-examined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsel’s opening statement
• concluding that an eight-week period of time between the commission of the crime and the time of identification was “neither so short as to favor reliability nor too long to raise any serious doubts”
• explaining that questioning of juror about media accounts in front of other potential jurors risked tainting the jury pool
• explaining that questioning of juror about media accounts in front of other potential jurors risked tainting the jury pool
• stating that the identification procedure in which the defendant was the only person in the courtroom wearing a prison uniform and shackles was “suggestive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).