Talkington 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 it was error to refer to the complainant as the “victim” when the sole issue was about whether the complainant consented to the sexual intercourse
• holding improper an instruction to the jury that if it found evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant “did then and there unlawfully intentionally or knowingly by means of force or 55 threats have sexual intercourse with (KB
• “We hold that to refer in the court’s charge to the complainant as the ‘victim’ when the issue is whether or not she consented to sexual intercourse, constitutes reversible error.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).