Kaplan v. City of Linwood

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that there was no plain error in trial court not excluding statements under Rule 404 (b
• concluding that “[t]he State needed to, and was entitled to, counter the defense theory challenging the credibility of its . . . main witnesses” through other acts evidence
• explaining how evidence not otherwise relevant can “‘bec[o]me relevant,’” or be “made relevant,” as result of how trial unfolds
• need not decide question of counsel’s deficiency when evidence of appellant’s guilt was “very strong”
• no prejudice where, even assuming counsel was deficient by failing to object during closing argument, other evidence of the appellant’s guilt was “very strong”
• where this Court, in analyzing whether the admission of certain evidence would qualify as a clear or obvious error under Rule 403, considered whether such admission was a “blatant abuse of discretion” and determined that it was not

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).