Matz v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that prior acts were not sufficiently similar to be relevant
• explaining that pornography provided “another explanation for T.M.’s lack of innocence about sexual matters”
• holding evidence of prior sexual abuse inadmissible under rule 5 412
• holding evidence of prior sexual abuse inadmissible under rule 412
• holding evidence of prior sexual abuse inadmissible under rule 412

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).