No. 18-6663
IFP
Tags: appellate-review civil-rights criminal-procedure double-jeopardy due-process jury-instructions murder murder-conviction prior-acts provocation provocation-defense self-defense substantial-evidence
Latest Conference:
2019-01-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. The Appellate Court holding the Petitioner a bar ce ae =e led To 4 Secinos Provocation lastcvetion tio. Becanse He Tstified that He Anted cust Opoctis Precedent a
2. This Case Creseats aa bnpactaat Goeschion: Poosecution LS Entitled to as coond Ded (ée, Muxdoec , uc lastase+ LoNs k ase On Serieus {Wenvas otto bemmin 'CO +h Sobstan ial
3. The Aooel\ or 0 aa + A ' cious Yrovocation Foetbel te he lnenslent defense of
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Appellate Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner's claim of provocation instruction due to the Petitioner's testimony that he acted out of fear of the victim's prior violent acts
Docket Entries
2019-01-14
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-08-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 13, 2018)
Attorneys
Esau Escobar
Esau Escobar — Petitioner