United States v. Patrick Hinton

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 concerns outlined in Bettencourt and San Martin were “inapplicable where . . . the charged and prior conduct were part of a pattern of abuse involving the same victim and . . . similar modus operandi”
• noting that testimony of one witness, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient evidence to satisfy test
• noting that testimony of one witness, even if uncorroborated, is sufficient evidence to satisfy test
• agreeing that “[a]mple evidence of a life-threatening injury supported the sentencing court’s factual findings on this issue,” including, like here, witness testimony establishing the victim’s injuries and maltreatment
• limiting Bettencourt’s binding dictum and admitting prior assaults that were part of a pattern of abuse
• finding no error in admitting evidence of prior assaults because “the charged and prior conduct were part of a pattern of abuse involving the same victim and . . . similar modus operandi” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).