State v. Valverde

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that structural error “deprive[s] defendants of basic protections” and, if an appellate court finds such error, “reversal is mandated regardless of whether an objection is made below”
• finding no prejudice because, in context of argument, error in instructions suggested “an interpretation that would have helped rather than harmed [defendant]”
• noting that when a defendant properly objects at trial to nonstructural error, the state must prove harmlessness by establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that, in light of all the evidence, “the error did not contribute to or affect the verdict”
• assuming without deciding that trial court’s instructional omission was fundamental error but finding no prejudice
• finding no prejudice in failure to instruct jury regarding defendant's burden of proving self-defense
• finding no prejudice in failure to instruct jury regarding defendant's burden of proving self-defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).