Dennis v. Sayles

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that it was error to exclude evidence of the complainant’s state of mind, where it suggested a motive to attack the defendant and thereby corroborated the defendant’s claim of self-defense
• stating that “a court may address that risk of misuse through a limiting instruction to the jury”
• explaining that the erroneous exclusion of emails was not harmless because “we cannot say that those additional facts and inferences were unlikely to influence the jury’s verdict”
• explaining that the erroneous exclusion of emails was not harmless because “we cannot say that those additional facts and inferences were unlikely to influence the jury’s verdict”
• observing that an “evidentiary error is more likely to influence a verdict if the error relates to a central factual issue” in a case (internal citations omitted)
• observing that an “evidentiary error is more likely to influence a verdict if the error relates to a central factual issue” in a case (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).