State v. Valdivia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the evidence against defendant was not \so weak” as to favor finding the DPA’s remarks harmful and holding that the DPA’s statements were \harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”
• holding that the prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• holding that the prosecutorial misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• reiterating that this court must give effect to the plain meaning of a statute’s unambiguous language and that resort to legislative history is an interpretive tool “[i]n construing an ambiguous statute”
• reiterating that this court must give effect to the plain meaning of a statute's unambiguous language and that resort to legislative history is an interpretive tool \[i]n construing an ambiguous statute\
• although no specific curative instruction was given with respect to improper (but not racial) remarks made by the prosecutor during his opening statement, general instructions given by the court can weigh the second Rogan factor in favor of the State

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).