Collum 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 there was “no error” in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s continuance motion on the grounds that he received “amended witness lists and additional documentation from the State shortly before trial”
• holding that trial court did not err in denying motion for mistrial based on expert’s testimony that victim was beaten to death because “the ultimate issue was the identity of the person or persons responsible for the beating”
• ultimate issue was not whether victim beaten to death, but “was the identity of the person or persons responsible for the beating”
• the force necessary to break a young child’s rib is an issue beyond the ken of the average layperson
• “ ‘in some cases the properly admitted evidence of guilt is so overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the [failure to sever] is so insignificant by comparison, that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the improper [result] was harmless error’ ”
• the ultimate issue was who had beaten the child

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).