Alcantar v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that inadmissible evidence should not have been allowed where “there was no misleading testimony to correct”
• holding that an officer who monitored an audio transmission of a controlled drug buy but did not witness it should not have been allowed to testify that he knew the defendant for \all\ of his twenty-three-year career and knew the defendant's street -8- name
• \[T]he trial court's decision[] to admit into evidence the irrelevant and prejudicial testimony that the second officer knew Mr. Alcantar from his long experience in law enforcement . . . [was] in contravention to the rules of evidence and an abuse of discretion.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).