Abstract
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old at the time of the crime, was convicted of murder and other charges in Delaware. He appealed, arguing the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were prejudicial. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to determine if they fairly presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Abstract
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old at the time of the crime, was convicted of murder and other charges in Delaware. He appealed, arguing the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were prejudicial. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to determine if they fairly presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Summary
Justin Burrell, a juvenile at the time of the offense, was found guilty of murder and related charges in Delaware. Burrell appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were flawed and prejudiced the jury against him. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the trial court's instructions to ascertain whether they accurately conveyed the legal principles of self-defense to the jury.
Abstract
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old at the time of the crime, was convicted of murder and other charges in Delaware. He appealed, arguing the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were prejudicial. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to determine if they fairly presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Summary
Justin Burrell, a minor at the time of the crime, was found guilty of murder and other charges in Delaware. Burrell appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial court's jury instructions on the legal principle of self-defense were unfair. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to assess whether they accurately and impartially presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Abstract
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old at the time of the crime, was convicted of murder and other charges in Delaware. He appealed, arguing the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were prejudicial. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to determine if they fairly presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Summary
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old, was found guilty of murder and other crimes in Delaware. He challenged the verdict, arguing that the judge's instructions to the jury about self-defense were unfair. The Delaware Supreme Court examined the instructions to see if they accurately explained the law of self-defense to the jury.
Abstract
Justin Burrell, a 17-year-old at the time of the crime, was convicted of murder and other charges in Delaware. He appealed, arguing the trial court's jury instructions on self-defense were prejudicial. The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed the instructions to determine if they fairly presented the law of self-defense to the jury.
Summary
Justin Burrell was a teenager when he was accused of a crime. He said he was defending himself, but when the judge gave the jury instructions on the law of self-defense, the jury ruled against Justin. Justin thought the judge's instructions were unfair, so he asked a higher court to look at the case. The higher court checked the judge's instructions to see if they explained the law of self-defense properly.