Klaes v. Scholl

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging cases holding “that when an issue exists as to who committed the aggression, character of the victim is ‘in issue’ and evidence of specific acts is admissible” but stating “the ‘issue’ in question is not one of character but rather of conduct”
• \[W]e are not dealing with the special situation in which the person claiming self-defense had actual knowledge of the other person's prior acts of violence.\
• “We believe, however, that in cases like this one the ‘issue’ in question is not one of character but rather of conduct. 25 We hold therefore the evidence of Scholl’s prior conduct did not go to an essential element of self-defense as required by rule [5.]405(b
• discussing rule 404 in civil assault context

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).