State v. Sandate

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a jury instruction on unlawfulness for a charge of CSCM 3 was not required because there is no situation where the defendant’s placing of his 4 tongue on or around the minor victim’s vagina could be considered lawful
• holding that a jury instruction on unlawfulness for a charge 15 of CSCM was not required because there is no situation where the defendant’s placing 16 of his tongue on or around the minor victim’s vagina could be considered lawful
• discussing concerns of evidence attempting to prove accused acted in conformity with his past conduct
• interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence provision as analogous to the New Mexico provision; “Rule 801(d)(1)(B

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).