Gardner v. Joy

How courts have described this case

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

• finding a jury acquittal on charges relating to specific facts alleged as improper Rule 404(b) testimony demonstrated a lack of prejudice
• discussing that even after a proper demand is filed, if the State does not file its notice then the district court is not alerted to the evidentiary issue, and a proper Gleason hearing cannot be held thus turning our review to whether there was a prejudicial error
• “Mr. Broberg filed a pretrial demand for disclosure of 404(b) evidence, thereby timely objecting to the introduction of 404(b) evidence and permitting our review for an abuse of discretion.”
• “We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion when an objection has been lodged and a pretrial demand is treated as a timely objection.”
• State “absolutely should have identified the digital anal penetration evidence as potential 404(b) evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).