595, 603-04 (1976); State v. George, 337 Or. 329, 97 P.3d 656, 662 (2004) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Mulgrew, 475 Pa. 271, 380 A.2d 349, 350 (1977); Glasscock v. State, 570 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tenn.Crim.App.1978); State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 298 (Utah 1988), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Doporto, 935 P.2d 484, 489 (Utah 1997); State v. Nuckolls, 166 W.Va. 259, 273 S.E.2d 87, 90-91 (1980). 14 . Wood, 545 A.2d at 1035-36 (noting that, under common law rules, Connecticut courts did not require the instruction, see State v. Holmquist, 173 Conn. 140, 376 A.2d 1111, 1113-14 (1977), but that the instruction is currently required by statute); Spraggins, 364 S.E.2d at 863 (noting that instruction is required by statute); Cooper v. State, 253 Ga. 736, 325 S.E.2d 137, 139-40 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Amorin, 574 P.2d at 898-99; Alexander, 729
holding that the apprendi rule was not implicated because a juvenile transfer proceeding does not involve sentencing or a determination of guilt or innocence holding that a consequence instruction was properly refused holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial and instead giving a curative instruction when an improper comment on a defendants silence was not directed to any particular statement or defense offered by the defendant was made during the witnesss explanation of the course of events and did not have the effect of being probative on the issue of guilt or innocence holding a consequence instruction is not necessary because the consequences of the verdict have no bearing upon the guilt or innocence of the defendant