State v. Vigilante

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that trial court's jury instructions were erroneous because they failed to adequately inform the jury that State had burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not kill in heat of passion
• finding that jury could conclude that past history of violence \accumulated a detonating force which caused him to explode\
• prior history of abuse, threats to kill, and fact that victim \bent down to pick up a pipe wrench\ all indicated presence of reasonable provocation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).