Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 8161 - 8170 of 12912 for prosecuting.
Search results 8161 - 8170 of 12912 for prosecuting.
State v. Chris C. Lichtenberg
this information and was further advised that the OWI and PAC charges would not be prosecuted, that the refusal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5602 - 2005-03-31
this information and was further advised that the OWI and PAC charges would not be prosecuted, that the refusal
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=5602 - 2005-03-31
State v. Israel Saldana
the prosecution’s case-in-chief about Saldana’s gang affiliation.[10] Trial counsel was not ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11532 - 2013-05-07
the prosecution’s case-in-chief about Saldana’s gang affiliation.[10] Trial counsel was not ineffective
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=11532 - 2013-05-07
State v. Joe J. Davis
within 180 days “after the prisoner has caused to be delivered” to the appropriate court and prosecuting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2256 - 2011-12-26
within 180 days “after the prisoner has caused to be delivered” to the appropriate court and prosecuting
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=2256 - 2011-12-26
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
in the Sauk County case, he had been serving a probationary term under a deferred prosecution agreement
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=472272 - 2022-01-13
in the Sauk County case, he had been serving a probationary term under a deferred prosecution agreement
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=472272 - 2022-01-13
State v. Gregg R. Madden
to sentencing for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution would be substantially prejudiced. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14093 - 2006-03-31
to sentencing for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution would be substantially prejudiced. See State
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=14093 - 2006-03-31
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
] if: (a) In prosecutions under s. 940.01, the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=461183 - 2021-12-09
] if: (a) In prosecutions under s. 940.01, the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=461183 - 2021-12-09
[PDF]
State v. Dennis E. Jones
established Jones’s status as a repeat offender; that the prosecution did not withhold exculpatory evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24709 - 2017-09-21
established Jones’s status as a repeat offender; that the prosecution did not withhold exculpatory evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=24709 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
, prosecuted his case with customary promptness. If the accused makes this showing, the court must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108713 - 2017-09-21
, prosecuted his case with customary promptness. If the accused makes this showing, the court must
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=108713 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249753 - 2019-11-07
to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. The defense of privilege can be claimed under any
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=249753 - 2019-11-07
State v. Dennis E. Jones
established Jones’s status as a repeat offender; that the prosecution did not withhold exculpatory evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24709 - 2006-04-04
established Jones’s status as a repeat offender; that the prosecution did not withhold exculpatory evidence
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=24709 - 2006-04-04