Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Claar

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]e may affirm an evidentiary ruling on any basis supported by the record.”
• “Rule 104(a) support[s] the proposition that an evidentiary hearing is not required simply because a defendant demands one or because confrontation and cross-examination are the best tools for developing facts, exposing inconsistencies, and determining witness credibility.”
• “Given the absence of a true factual dispute regarding the other acts, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the clear-and-convincing- evidence standard satisfied, even in the absence of a pretrial hearing with live witness testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).