Stinski v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not err by asking the statutory questions, “allowing follow-up questions by both parties, and then excusing jurors in accordance with constitutional standards”
• holding that a similar charge “properly directed the jurors to focus their guilt/innocence phase deliberations solely on the question of [the defendant’s] possible guilt rather than possibly being distracted by premature concerns regarding sentencing”
• noting that Jackson had been recently overruled by Montejo, and accordingly disapproving that portion of O’Kelley v. State, 278 Ga. 564, 568 (2) (604 SE2d 509) (2004
• applying harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis to “several minor instances” of victim impact testimony that violated those limitations to victim impact testimony in Booth that was left undisturbed in Payne
• applying harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis to \several minor instances\ of victim impact testimony that violated those limitations to victim impact testimony in Booth that was left undisturbed in Payne
• finding “several minor” violations of limits of victim-impact testimony harmless beyond a reasonable doubt when violations merely concerned obviously and indisputably accurate, but nonetheless improper, characterizations of the crime

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).