State ex rel. Pindexter v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• prosecutor properly argued that witness “had nothing to gain by testifying falsely”
• prosecutor may argue from evidence that state’s witnesses had no motive to lie
• court found improper remarks infrequent where remarks consisted of only two instances of brief dura- tion, which was not grossly egregious when viewed in context of entire trial
• prosecutor properly argued that witness ‘had nothing to gain by testifying falsely’
• prosecutor may argue from evidence that state’s witnesses had no motive to lie
• “[w]e . . . never have categorically barred counsel’s use of such rhetorical devices ... as long as there is no rea sonable likelihood that the particular device employed will confuse the jury or otherwise prejudice the opposing party” [internal quotation marks omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).