R.K. v. R.G.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the trial court has “broad discretion in admitting generalized testimony,” unlike particularized testimony, which “concerns a specific victim’s credibility as to the abuse”
• finding error was preserved, “[r]egardless of nomenclature,” where all the subsequent assertions of error “consistently articulated a singular hazard”
• finding fundamental error resulted from admission of opinion testimony of Child Advocacy Center interviewer that child’s account of sexual abuse boasted numerous “indicators of reliability,” including ability to name some of the same details described in the charges

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).