Skip to main content

People v. Snook

Citations

  • 745 P.2d 647
  • 1987 Colo. LEXIS 644

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that expert testimony was inadmissible where the expert testified that children tend not to fabricate erotic experiences
  • holding that “the jury’s only conceivable use of’ testimony that children tend not to fabricate stories of sexual abuse and that they often reproduce their experience when reporting it “would be as support for the complainant’s truthful character”
  • holding that, even though “the expert had no personal knowledge of the victim’s credibility and couched her testimony in general terms,” her testimony was still improper because it referred to the victim’s character for truthfulness
  • stating that error in admitting expert’s testimony vouching for victim’s credibility was not harmless because victim’s credibility “was the focal issue in the case”
  • stating that error in admitting expert’s testimony vouching for victim’s credibility was not harmless because victim’s credibility “was the focal issue in the case”
  • analyzing the admissibility of the challenged expert testimony under CRE 608(a), not CRE 702, and disagreeing with the People that (1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Erickson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

34 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.