State v. Mahmoud
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of assault. Defendant appealed, asserting that the superior court committed prejudicial error by failing to give his proposed jury instructions on eyewitness identification. The court did give an instruction on eyewitness identification but did not give Defendant’s proposed instructions verbatim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions that the trial court gave were a correct statement of the law; (2) the requested instruction was not generated by the evidence; and (3) the requested instruction was sufficiently covered by the instructions given.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.