State v. Taylor
Nebraska Supreme Court
803 N.W.2d 746 (2011)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Justin Gaines was shot to death by two men while he sat in his car. Trevelle Taylor (defendant) was charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for Gaines’s killing. Substantial physical evidence and eyewitness testimony linked Taylor to the crime. One witness who had agreed to testify was Joshua Kercheval, the driver of the car that had allegedly brought Taylor and his accomplice to the vicinity of the crime. Before Kercheval could testify, however, Taylor called Kercheval and warned him in a threatening manner not to testify. This call was recorded and given as evidence in Taylor’s trial. The trial judge instructed the jury that a defendant’s attempt to prevent a witness from testifying may serve as a basis for an inference that the defendant was guilty as charged and that such evidence could be considered by the jury in determining whether the prosecution had proved each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The instruction failed to state that the jury was not required to draw such an inference, however. Taylor was convicted on both counts. He appealed, alleging that the jury instruction regarding the threatening phone call to Kercheval was in error because it created an improper presumption of guilt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCormack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
