Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Poli v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Carroll

    388 F. Supp. 2d 413 (D. Del. 2005)   Cited 10 times

    A person can be found guilty of a weapons offense under § 1447A even if the weapon is not used during the commission of the felony. Poli v. State, 418 A.2d 985, 987 (Del. 1980). Here, during petitioner's trial, one of the employees who pursued petitioner out into the parking lot testified that petitioner said he had a gun, threatened to shoot the employee, and then reached into his pocket and produced what the employee believed to be a revolver.

  2. Robertson v. State

    704 A.2d 267 (Del. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    Adopting majority rule and quoting Ensor v. State, 403 So.2d 349, 354 (Fla. 1981)

    He contends that, as a matter of law, a "concealed" weapon is not in plain view. See, e.g., Upshur v. State, Del.Supr., 420 A.2d 165, 168 (1980); Poli v. State, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 985, 987 (1980). Courts in a majority of other jurisdictions have held that concealment means hidden from "ordinary observation.

  3. Sheeran v. State

    526 A.2d 886 (Del. 1987)   Cited 63 times
    Holding that the Court did not abuse its discretion when it did not investigate a juror's complaint that the foreperson prevented the juror from sending a note to the judge because the foreperson's conduct was not intrinsic influence about which the juror could not testify

    See Murray v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 358 A.2d 651, 653 (1976). Cf. Poli v. State, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 985, 987 (1980) (remedial instruction can correct prior error in instruction); State v. Liberty, Me.Supr., 478 A.2d 1112, 1116-17 (1984) (same); State v. Inman, Me.Supr., 350 A.2d 582, 588-89 (1976) (same); Commonwealth v. Lopez, 455 Pa. 353, 318 A.2d 334, 337 (1974) (same). The trial court's instructions to the jury will not serve as grounds for reversible error if they are "reasonably informative and not misleading, judged by common practices and standards of verbal communication."

  4. Hopkins v. State

    501 A.2d 774 (Del. 1985)   Cited 14 times
    In Hopkins, the delay was attributable to the fact that after the defendant's arrest, the chief investigative officer, the person who later interviewed the defendant, remained at the defendant's residence for seven hours executing a search warrant.

    On the contrary, it would seem that the arresting officer was the most appropriate person to interview defendant and that until the search and seizure was completed and return made, any interview would have been premature. See Poli v. State, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 985, 987 (1980). Because defendant was not taken to the committing magistrate until sometime after 9:00 p.m. and before midnight, he urges this added delay as a further basis for applying the exclusionary rule to his statement obtained about 7:00 p.m.

  5. Key v. State

    463 A.2d 633 (Del. 1983)   Cited 28 times
    Threatening the use of a deadly weapon—knife was held just in front of victim's face—necessarily creates risk of serious injury

    Upshur v. State, Del.Supr., 420 A.2d 165, 169 (1980); Poli v. State, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 985 (1980). See Del. C.rim. Code Comm. 16 (1973).

  6. Anderson v. State

    452 A.2d 955 (Del. 1982)   Cited 7 times

    Hence, defendant's statement was properly admissible. Poli v. State, Del.Supr., 418 A.2d 985 (1980). * * *

  7. State v. Fisher

    ID No. 0906002280 (Del. Super. Ct. Aug. 25, 2010)

    Id. at 302.Admissibility of confession or other statement made by defendant as affected by delay in arraignment — modern state cases, 28 A.L.R. 4th 1121 (West 2010); see also Wright v. State, 633 A.2d 329 (Del. 1993); Poli v. State, 418 A.2d 985 (Del. 1980); Fullman v. State, 389 A.2d 1292 (Del. 1978) rev'd on other grounds, Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979)).Fullman, 389 A.2d at 1298.