Skip to main content

Stahl v. State

Citations

  • 686 N.E.2d 89
  • 1997 Ind. LEXIS 145
  • 1997 WL 596628

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that Evidence Rule 803(15) is meant to apply to “dispositive” documents that are regarded as “inherently reliable,” such as deeds, liens, and bills of sale
  • \[The ultimate question in this case is the interpretation of the language of a rule of evidence that presents a question of law for this Court.\
  • “[I]f all the evidence, even that erroneously admitted, is sufficient to support the jury verdict, double jeopardy does not bar a retrial on the same charge.”
  • “[I]f all the evidence, even that erroneously admitted, is sufficient to support the jury verdict, double jeopardy does not bar a retrial on the same charge.”
  • error to admit bank’s “affidavit of forgery” document, which had been completed by bank customer at bank’s request to verify that defendant did not have authorization to use customer’s ATM card, because requirements of Rule 803(6) were not met
  • error to admit bank’s “affidavit of forgery” document, which had been completed by bank customer at bank’s request to verify that defendant did not have authorization to use customer’s ATM card, because requirements of Rule 803(6) were not met

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Dickson, Selby, Shepard, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

17 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.