Skip to main content

Pritchard v. State

Citations

  • 810 N.E.2d 758
  • 2004 Ind. App. LEXIS 1158
  • 2004 WL 1404890

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that, even if it could be concluded that it was error for the trial court to admit certain testimony, the error would have been harmless and the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the testimony
  • holding that, even if it could be concluded that it was error for the trial court to admit certain testimony, the error would have been harmless and the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the testimony
  • providing that witnesses clan clearly testify to things that are within their personal knowledge
  • stating that where the witnesses recounted what they saw on the later-missing video tape, “[f]or purposes of the admissibility of their testimony, this is no different than if they had been standing on cell-block E-5 observing the incident”
  • testifying to nonhearsay contents of purged video admissible as personal knowledge when witnesses had watched the video
  • testimony about what witnesses observed on video was not hearsay because the video images only showed the non-verbal conduct of the persons depicted and included nothing that those persons intended as an assertion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bailey, Baker, Friedlander

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 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.