Moreover, the defendant contended that some of the statements set forth in the bill of particulars should have been left out from the consideration of the jury because the evidence produced by the State was not adequate enough to establish that he lied under oath. The bill of particulars that the State filed referred specifically to pages and lines of the transcript of the defendant’s testimony at the hearing. at 754.Īfter the defendant was charged with lying under oath he filed a motion for a bill of particulars and the district court allowed the motion. A few days after the hearing of the accomplice’s motion for a new trial, the defendant was charged and eventually convicted of lying under oath. At the hearing for the accomplice’s motion, the defendant testified that he alone had conceived and committed the murder and that the accomplice had not assisted in its commission. As a result, the accomplice was convicted of murder and later filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. However, after two mistrials, the defendant’s accomplice was tried for a third time and the defendant testified that the accomplice was an active, if not motivating force, in the murder. The defendant pled guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The defendant and his accomplice were charged with murder. This case was the aftermath of a tragic murder which occurred in June 1970. In answering this question, the court found that it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove each and every factual statement contained in the bill of particulars so long as the State proved all the necessary elements of the particular crime charged, the evidence was sufficient to convict regardless of whether every statement in the bill of particulars was proven. This case explored the question of whether the State has to prove all the information in the bill of particulars. 1973).ĭoes the State have to prove all the information in the Bill of Particulars? The following case answers the question above. Lawyers and other courts then can rely on that ruling when they have a similar issue in their case. When the court decides a certain meeting to the law it essentially answers a legal question. The legislature can’t anticipate every possible fact scenario when they pass a law, so it lay to the courts to interpret the law and give guidance to what it means. Sometimes the black letter law passed by the legislature is unclear. Frequently Asked Criminal Defense Questions.A Step by Step Guide to a Criminal Case.Frequently Asked Personal Injury Questions.A Step by Step Guide to a Personal Injury Case.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |