Skip to main content

Johnson v. State

Citations

  • 632 A.2d 152
  • 332 Md. 456
  • 1993 Md. LEXIS 155

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that trial court erred in excluding evidence that victim had exchanged sex for drugs within a week of the alleged rape because it was central to defendant's defense, highly probative to prove that defense, and unlikely to be misused by the jury
  • holding that trial court erred in excluding evidence that victim had exchanged sex for drugs within a week of the alleged rape because it was central to defendant’s defense, highly probative to prove that defense, and unlikely to be misused by the jury
  • describing the responsibility for balancing as “entrusted in the first instance to the trial court” and suggesting the importance of showing “special relevance,” considering necessity and potential for prejudice
  • listing examples of such cases, including Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 379-80 (1962), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 386 U.S. 66 (1967), and Humphries v. State, 227 Md. 115, 121 (1961)
  • “Evidence is relevant (and/or material) when it has a tendency to prove a proposition at issue in the case”
  • “Evidence is relevant (and/or material) when it has a tendency to prove a proposition at issue in the case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

39 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.