Unkart, Rodney Gale

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “some appellate complaints do not have to be preserved by a timely request for relief at the trial level”
• recognizing that, “[o]rdinarily, a complaint regarding an improper judicial comment must be preserved at trial” but declining to address the procedural consequences of a late objection
• holding that solely moving for mistrial will preserve error if timely objection or instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm flowing from the improper comment
• holding that a motion for mistrial alone is sufficient to preserve error if a timely objection would not have prevented, and an instruction to disregard would not have cured, the harm flowing from the error
• noting that the trial judge told the jury panel that there might be “legitimate reasons, unrelated to guilt, for not testifying”
• noting that a timely instruction to disregard statement during voir dire would have cured any error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).