Legal Opinion
Hindt v. State
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided September 15, 1980PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HERRMANN, Chief Justice.
In this appeal we are asked to reverse defendant’s conviction under 7 Del.C. § 6013(a) 1 of the Water and Air Resources Act because: (1) prejudicial error was committed by the Trial Court when it allowed a witness for the prosecution to give an opinion regarding the ultimate fact to be decided by the jury; (2) the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts; (3) the defendant was denied due process in his conviction; (4) the State failed to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; (5) the Act was applied to the defendant in an ex post facto manner; (6) the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Rummel v. EstelleSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Dobbert v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Barrows v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Beazell v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
- United States v. Louis I. Gordon, Eduardo Jose Garcia, Jeffrey Mark Berg, James M. Cowen, and Eric Theodore LubovCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Traylor v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1983
- Wheatt v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
- Tilden v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware · 1986
- State v. WiseCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.