State v. Kaarma
Annotate this CaseAfter a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of deliberate homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury on justifiable use of force in defense of a person; (2) did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motions to change venue based on pretrial publicity; (3) did not abuse its discretion when it declined to remove a prospective juror for cause based on her marriage to a former police officer; (4) did not abuse its discretion when it admitted rebuttal evidence of Defendant’s bad character to rebut evidence of Defendant’s good character; and (5) abused its discretion when it allowed lay opinion testimony regarding blood spatter evidence, but the error was harmless.
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.