AMTA Case Law 25-26

State v. Marquez

You don't have to desire or hope for a particular result to act knowingly.

State v. Butler

The extreme reckless murder theory cannot stop a case from going to a jury if all of the evidence taken together shows that this recklessness could be interpreted as showing the type of recklessness that equates to purposeful or knowing homicide.

State v. Dawson

Conviction for reckless murder affirmed because facts showed marked deviation in degree away from the standards of regard for life and safety of others typically seen in negligent acts.

State v. Barrow

When a defendant commits a series of actions that may not show intent and singularly kill someone, defendant can still be found guilty if cumulative harm of their actions shows extreme indifference to human life. Repeated harmful actions by defendant show greater culpability than accidental or unintentional harm.

State v. Durden

In Midlands, you can't argue "temporary insanity" as a legal excuse, but can use it to show you might not have had the intent required for the crime.

State v. Rich

In criminal cases, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and the burden is on the state.

State v. Smith

Every case should consider if the cumulative impact of admissible evidence is enough to convince the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Tamoeu

Defense is never required to provide alternate theory. If they do, the burden will never shift to them however, prosecution may note the defense's failure to offer evidence to support the theory.

State v. Lazares

Prosecutors may not comment on the rights exercised to speak or not speak with police officers or testify in their defense, nor can they imply that persons are guilty because of the rights exercised.

State v. Chatterjee

If a criminal defendent chooses to testify it is not burden shifting to point out during cross examination that the defense has not produced ocuments or other evidents to support their alternative theory. The state may not suggest that a defendant had an affirmative duty to produce documents in order to not be found guilty.

State v. Haughey

All criminal trials are split into a guilt phase followed by a penalty phase.

State v. Deters

During the guilt phase, evidence is not relevant if it is directed solely to the penalty being given if the defendant is found guilty. It is improper for an attorney to comment on sentencing or discuss potential penalties during the guilt phase of the trial

State v. Niehaus

In Midlands, both the prosecution and defense can always present evidence to prove or challenge any element of a charged crime. A party can't block that evidence just by saying they are no longer focusing on or disputing that issue.

State v. Rittgers

The sequestration of the lead investigating officer in a criminal case is allowed if that law enforcement officer is not elected to be the government's representative during pretrial matters

State v. Singh

Venue and identification of the defendant are necessary elements of every criminal prosecution. The proper place to bring it to the court's attention that the prosecutor has failed to prove these necessary elements of the charged offense is in defense closing argument

Ahmed v. O'Keeffe:

If a witness refuses to respond to a question their entire testimony must be stricken from the record.

State v. Nakajima

The requirement that a character trait be pertinent significantly exceeds that of relevance. Pertinence means that they trait itself must directly relate to a particular element of facet of the crime charged.

Estate of Hamilton v. Walton

Testimony about someone's psychological condition is not considered "character evidence." Just like having a physical condition, having a mental disorder doesn't automatically say anything about their personality or traits.

Ellis v. Norton

Talking about how hard someone is willing to push themselves mentally or physically isn't considered "character evidence." Saying someone is determined or tough is okay and not excluded under MRE 404(a)(1).

State v. Wiseman

When deciding if evidence can be used in court, the strict "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply. Instead, the person trying to introduce the evidence just has to show it's more likely than not true.

State v. Arbuckle

Under MRE 104(a), a judge can look at both admissible and inadmissible evidence to decide if evidence can be used in court. Using inadmissible evidence this way doesn't make it allowed—it just helps the judge decide. The jury usually doesn't see these underlying facts.

State v. Watt

Judges can use official documents (like clerk certifications or affidavits) to decide if other evidence is allowed, even if those documents themselves aren't admitted. They're just for deciding admissibility.

Kennedy v. Kennedy-Jones

If there's enough evidence for a jury to reasonably think someone made a statement, the court assumes it was made when deciding if it can be used in court.

Ginger v. Heisman:

If an email, text, or social media message comes from an account or number linked to a person, it's generally enough to assume that person sent it, unless there's a specific reason to think otherwise.

Davis v. Adams

Judges must make sure scientific evidence is relevant and reliable. They check the methods and data, not the conclusions. The person introducing the evidence must prove it meets Rule 702 more likely than not.

Tarot Readers Association of Midlands v. Merrell Dow

Under Rule 702(C), judges look at factors like testability, peer review, error rate, and acceptance in the field to decide if scientific evidence is reliable—but no single factor automatically rules it out. Judges consider the whole situation.

Richards v. Mississippi BBQ

Under MRE 703, experts can't just repeat inadmissible hearsay. They can only use it if it helps them form conclusions based on their specialized knowledge. If they're just a "conduit" repeating what they heard, it's not allowed. Regular admissible statements stay admissible even through an expert.

State v. Richardson

n Midlands, a witness doesn't need to be formally "tendered" as an expert before giving expert testimony. For example, a forensic pathologist can testify about cause and manner of death without being officially declared an expert first. The trial judge decides whether the Rule 702 foundation (relevance and reliability of the expert's knowledge) is satisfied, and that decision is within the judge's discretion.

Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations

In Midlands, experts cannot be used for "trial by ambush." Their pretrial reports must include all opinions they will testify to, the basis and reasons for those opinions, the facts or data they relied on, and their qualifications. On direct and redirect, experts are strictly limited to what's in their report—new opinions or conclusions are excluded if opposing counsel objects. For example, an expert can't say they formed a conclusion based on trial evidence they never reviewed before.

Yu-Oh Industries v. Beckstein Alekri Inc.:

Under Kane Software Co. v. Mars Investigations (1998), expert testimony cannot be excluded as "trial by ambush" just because the expert did not list every single underlying fact in their report. What matters is that the expert's conclusions are clearly stated in the report and that any documents the expert relied on were disclosed to the other side during discovery.

Jeffries v. Polk County Police Department

Law enforcement officers are not automatically "experts" under MRE 702 or the Tarot Readers case. Instead, they often fall under MRE 701, which allows them to give opinions based on their specialized training, skills, and experience as officers.

Omnidirectional Solutions v. Little Bird Word LLC

The Court in Tarot Readers Ass'n of Midlands v. Merrell Dow (1994) never intended to make expert testimony impossible under a rigid standard. As long as an expert can explain their expertise, training, and methods, their opinions should not be excluded just because there's no known error rate or prior peer review. Those issues go to credibility, which is for cross-examination—not a reason to block the testimony entirely.

America's Best Cookie v. International House of Waffles

In Midlands, "hearsay" includes any out-of-court statement, even if the person who made the statement is a witness on the stand or will testify later in the same trial.

State v. Tate

Under MRE 801(d)(2) in Midlands, only the State can use a criminal defendant's out-of-court statements as evidence. The defense cannot use the defendant's own statements, even if the State already introduced some, except as allowed under MRE 106 (completeness). This rule only works one way in criminal cases.

Homel v. Arzen

Under MRE 801(d)(2), a criminal defendant's "opposing party" does not include police officers, prosecutors, informants, or anyone working with law enforcement. This means statements made to or by these people can be used by the State as the defendant's statements, even though they aren't literally the "opposing party."

State v. Hilton

MRE 801(d)(2) allows statements to be used against an opposing party without requiring that the statement be "against the party's interest." That "against the party's interest" language appears only in MRE 804(b)(3). If 801(d)(2) required it, the rule would have said so—so it doesn't.

State v. Smarda

A witness describing what they personally saw on a video is not hearsay, because they're testifying to their own observations. For example, a defendant describing people's movements in a video "outtake" is allowed. However, if the witness testifies about statements made in the video (what people said on it), that could be hearsay under MRE 802, unless an exception applies

State v. Bowling

Under MRE 801(d)(2)(E), which deals with coconspirator statements, the proponent only needs to prove the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Since Midlands rules don't allow recalling witnesses, a lawyer can ask for the statement to be admitted conditionally—meaning it can be used while the lawyer gathers additional evidence of the conspiracy through other witnesses. Whether the court allows conditional admission is up to the judge's discretion.

State v. Desiato

Under traditional common law, a defendant could be held responsible for a victim's death if the victim died within a year and a day of the defendant's injury, because the death was considered directly caused by the defendant. In Midlands, this "year and a day" rule still applies. In a criminal homicide case, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's voluntary act directly and foreseeably caused the victim's death