Michael Gray v. State of Indiana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that any error in excluding playing the relevant portions of a tape was harmless where the police officer ultimately admitted that his testimony may have been inconsistent
• noting that a prior inconsistent statement may be admissible as substantive evidence if the declarant testifies at trial, is subject to cross- examination, and the statement was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or deposition
• “Even when a trial court errs in excluding evidence, we will not find reversible error where that error is harmless; that is, where the error did not affect the substantial rights of a party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).