Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 1121 - 1130 of 68276 for did.
Search results 1121 - 1130 of 68276 for did.
State v. Lawrence Dean
. Because the trial court did not err in denying Dean's suppression motion, this court affirms. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10895 - 2005-03-31
. Because the trial court did not err in denying Dean's suppression motion, this court affirms. I
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=10895 - 2005-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
postconviction motion. He argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100358 - 2017-09-21
postconviction motion. He argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive his right
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=100358 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
Childeric Maxy v. Julia Meyer
filed his complaint on June 16, 2000, and the return date was scheduled for July 7, 2000. Maxy did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3506 - 2017-09-19
filed his complaint on June 16, 2000, and the return date was scheduled for July 7, 2000. Maxy did
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=3506 - 2017-09-19
COURT OF APPEALS
an order denying his postconviction motion. He argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100358 - 2013-08-05
an order denying his postconviction motion. He argues that he did not knowingly, intelligently
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=100358 - 2013-08-05
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
and photographs at trial; and “consult more” with Thurber prior to trial. We conclude the court 1 did not err
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172253 - 2017-09-21
and photographs at trial; and “consult more” with Thurber prior to trial. We conclude the court 1 did not err
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=172253 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
State v. Natisha W.
, not for evidence to support a verdict that the jury could have reached but did not.” Id. Moreover, “[o]nly when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6451 - 2017-09-19
, not for evidence to support a verdict that the jury could have reached but did not.” Id. Moreover, “[o]nly when
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=6451 - 2017-09-19
State v. Natisha W.
the jury’s verdict, not for evidence to support a verdict that the jury could have reached but did not.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6451 - 2005-03-31
the jury’s verdict, not for evidence to support a verdict that the jury could have reached but did not.” Id
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=6451 - 2005-03-31
COURT OF APPEALS
, but did not list the elements or have any jury instructions attached. The trial court confirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109920 - 2014-04-07
, but did not list the elements or have any jury instructions attached. The trial court confirmed
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=109920 - 2014-04-07
Frontsheet
of paragraphs 3 through 231." One of the two paragraphs Attorney Kelly's answer did not deny has some
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82876 - 2012-05-22
of paragraphs 3 through 231." One of the two paragraphs Attorney Kelly's answer did not deny has some
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=82876 - 2012-05-22
[PDF]
State v. Mary E. Schoate
penalizes her because of her indigency. We conclude the trial court did not erroneously exercise its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12152 - 2017-09-21
penalizes her because of her indigency. We conclude the trial court did not erroneously exercise its
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=12152 - 2017-09-21