Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Koehler v. Engle
466 U.S. 1
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1984-03-26
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- "the prejudicial effect of a Sandstrom instruction is largely a function of the defense asserted at trial."
- judgment below affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court; Marshall, J., not participating
- error not harmless when intent was contested
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Koehler v. Engle. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 39 opinions
466 U.S. 1 (1984)
KOEHLER, WARDEN
No. 83-1.
KOEHLER, WARDEN
v.
ENGLE
No. 83-1.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued February 28, 1984 Decided March 26, 1984 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUITLouis J. Caruso, Solicitor General of Michigan, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, and Thomas C. Nelson, Assistant Attorney General.
John Nussbaumer argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the decision of this case.