State v. Parler

How courts have described this case

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

• holding, under former Circuit Court Rule 76, the denial of the defendant’s directed verdict motion was not preserved for appeal where he failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence
• holding, under former Circuit Court Rule 76, the denial of the defendant’s directed verdict motion was not preserved for appeal where he failed to renew the motion after presenting evidence
• holding, under Circuit Court Rule 76, a defendant who fails to renew a directed verdict motion after presenting evidence during the defendant’s case has not preserved the denial for review by the appellate court
• holding under circuit court Rule 76, a defendant who fails to renew a directed verdict motion after presenting evidence during his case has not preserved the denial for review by the appellate court
• holding if a defendant makes a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, he must make another directed verdict motion at the close of all of the evidence in order to appeal the sufficiency of the evidence
• noting that a motion for directed verdict should have been made by the appellant at the close of all evidence, but waiving the appellant's failure to do so and considering the issue on its merits because the conviction and sentence involved the liberty of the appellant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).