Relevant case law

We should all know this for the case

State v. Marquez (1975) What does “knowingly” require?

“Knowingly” does not require that the defendant wanted the result. If someone acted purposefully, that is also knowingly, but the State does not have to prove desire/hope for the outcome.

State v. Butler (1978) When can “extreme reckless murder” go to the jury?

A judge cannot stop the jury from considering extreme reckless murder if the evidence, taken as a whole, could reasonably show heightened recklessness close to knowing or purposeful homicide.

State v. Dawson (2012) What kind of recklessness supports reckless murder?

Reckless murder can be affirmed where facts show a marked deviation from normal standards of regard for life and safety, beyond typical negligence.

State v. Barrow (2018) “Death by a thousand cuts”

Even if no single act screams “intent to kill,” a series of harmful actions can add up to extreme indifference. The cumulative harm can support depraved heart murder.

State v. Arbuckle (2016) What is NOT enough for depraved heart murder?

Proving “recklessness” alone is not enough. Depraved heart murder needs (1) recklessness plus (2) extreme indifference. A common way is multiple reckless actions with high probability of severe harm. One act alone can fail.

State v. Bernardi (2018) Can a boss or third party “make it not your fault”?

Orders from someone else may be mitigation, but do not erase defendant’s own culpable acts or omissions. Other people’s extreme indifference does not acquit you.

State v. Teglia (2025) How does other people’s negligence matter?

Negligence or recklessness by others can be relevant to what defendant knew or should’ve known about the danger, but it is not dispositive on whether defendant showed

State v. Durden (1996) “Temporary insanity” in Midlands

Midlands does not recognize “temporary insanity” as a full defense, but the defendant can still present evidence about mental state if it helps show inability to form

State v. Bunker (2025) Mental impairment evidence and mens rea

Even though temporary insanity is not a viable defense, the defendant can present otherwise admissible evidence of inability to form mens rea. These mental-impairment facts are relevant to whether he had the alleged mens rea.

State v. Rich (1904) Who carries the burden and what is it?

The State must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts to the defendant.

State v. Smith (1981) Elements vs facts

Burden applies to elements, not every discrete fact. The question is whether the total admissible evidence proves the element beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. Tamoe (2015) Can the prosecutor comment on the defense theory?

Defendant never has to present evidence. But if defense offers an alternative theory, the prosecutor can point out failure to support it with evidence, without shifting the burden.

State v. Lazares (2016) Commenting on silence or ending interrogation

No one may comment on defendant refusing to talk to police or refusing to testify, or imply that shows guilt

State v. Chatterjee (2017) Missing documents and “burden shifting”

If defendant testifies, credibility can be attacked like any witness. Prosecutor may point out missing supporting evidence for defense claims, but cannot argue defendant had a duty to produce documents to be not guilty.

State v. Deters (2009) Penalty talk during guilt phase

During guilt phase, it is improper to talk about sentencing or penalties. That can trigger mistrial or sanctions.

State v. Singh (2019) Venue and ID as elements

Venue and identification are elements in every prosecution. Midlands does not allow motions for acquittal, so defense should raise failures of proof in closing.

State v. Martin Pretrial order on Taylor Jha as expert

The court found sufficient evidence that Taylor Jha is an expert in Reality TV production and found MRE 702(a), (b), (c) satisfied. If otherwise admissible, Jha may testify as an expert.

America’s Best Cookie (2009) Midlands hearsay definition is broad

Hearsay includes out-of-court statements even if the declarant is on the stand or will testify.

State v. Tate (1987) 801(d)(2) only one direction in criminal cases

The State can offer defendant’s statements under 801(d)(2), but the defense generally cannot offer the defendant’s own statements under that rule, even if State already introduced some.

State v. Smarda (2005) Video descriptions and hearsay

A witness describing what they saw on video is not hearsay, but repeating statements heard on the video can trigger hearsay issues.

State v. Wiseman (1975) Standard for admissibility foundations

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not apply to admissibility. Foundation issues are decided by preponderance of the evidence.

Kennedy v. Kennedy-Jones (2005) Basic authentication rule

If the proponent produces enough evidence that a reasonable jury could find, by preponderance, a person made the statement, the judge must assume it was made by them for admissibility.

Ginger v. Heisman (2015) Authenticating texts/social media

Unless there’s a specific reason to think someone else sent it, the fact it comes from an account or number known or claiming to be the person is enough foundation.

Tarot Readers Association (1994) Reliability factors for expert testimony

Reliability can look at testability, peer review, error rate, acceptance. Not a rigid checklist. Totality of circumstances.

Omnidirectional Solutions (2023) Don’t use Tarot Readers as a blunt weapon

Court says Tarot Readers should not be used to block otherwise credible expert opinions just because there is no known error rate or peer review. Those issues often go to cross.

Richards v. Mississippi BBQ (1997) Expert cannot be a hearsay megaphone

Rule 703 does not allow experts to just summarize inadmissible hearsay without tying it to specialized knowledge. Courts must stop experts from becoming conduits.

Kane Software (1998) Expert report limits, no trial by ambush

Expert reports must include all opinions and bases. On direct/redirect, experts cannot add new opinions not in the report. On timely objection, that testimony is excluded.

State v. Bowling (2004) 801(d)(2)(E) co-conspirator statements

Conspiracy foundation only needs preponderance. Court may allow conditional admission since Midlands cannot recall witnesses.

State v. Desiato (2020) “year plus one day” and homicide causation

Midlands follows the common law year-and-a-day framework. Prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendant’s volitional act was the direct and foreseeable cause of death.

State v. Rodgers (2014) Negligence and causation

If defendant concedes negligence, it is proper to instruct causation is conceded too because causation is an element of negligence.

Spear v. Vietnam Travel Agency (2016) Duty to protect self from obvious harm

Midlands does not impose a duty to save others, but does require someone to protect themselves from obvious harm.