Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)

Citation
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Parent Document
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
2013-01-24

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text

574 chars
Third, whether the jury should be instructed on a defense does not depend on whether a witness has explicitly referred to that defense by name. For example, a defendant in a criminal case could surely be entitled to an entrapment instruction ‘even though no witness actually used the “entrapment.” In fact, where a de-lltase is defined in legal terms, it may be ,|mpermissible for the witness to testify ®jfectly in those terms. See generally, Steele v. D.C. Tiger Market, 854 A.2d 175, 181-83 (D.C.2004) (discussing restrictions on witness testimony framed in legal terms).