State v. Mumma

The Supreme Court modified and affirmed the decision of the court of appeals determining that the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by allowing the jury, without consent of the parties, to review certain photographs that had been admitted into evidence in the jury room and by instructing the jury concerning the effect of a determination that Defendant was the "aggressor" upon Defendant's right to act in self-defense, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.A jury returned a verdict convicting Defendant of second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the trial court erred by allowing the jury to review photographs that had already been admitted into evidence in the jury room without Defendant's consent, but the error was not prejudicial; and (2) the trial court did not commit plain error by including a discussion of the "aggressor" doctrine in its instructions to the jury concerning Defendant's claim to have killed the victim in the exercise of his right of self-defense. View "State v. Mumma" on Justia Law