State v. Marshall
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a nonresidence, criminal damage to property, and obstruction of a legal duty. The strongest evidence against Defendant was an eyewitness' identification of Defendant as the burglar. On appeal Defendant raised two issues related to the eyewitness' identification. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) a prosecutor can commit prejudicial misconduct when respondent to comments by defense counsel, but under the facts of this case, any misconduct committed by the prosecutor in commenting about the eyewitness' credibility was harmless; and (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that a contested instruction on eyewitness identification was clearly erroneous.
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.