in Re: Brigetta D'Olivio

How courts have described this case

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

• no abuse of discretion in excluding expert witness testimony where multiple eyewitnesses gave similar descriptions and additional evidence linked defendant to crime
• exclusion of expert testimony was not abuse of discretion where there were numerous eyewitnesses plus evidence of defendant's motive to kill victim
• \There is no requirement that evidence [of motive] be conclusive in order to be admissible.\ (alteration in original)
• where defendant had objected at trial and, unlike here, had preserved error, prior inconsistent statements as to identity that had been erroneously limited to credibility purposes only resulted in “no harm” to defendant
• no requirement that evidence of motive be conclusive to be admissible
• no requirement that evidence of motive be conclusive to be admissible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).