State v. Balisbisana

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “ ‘the exposure of a witnesses] motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination’ ”
• holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in excluding evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the charges against the defendant
• holding that the trial court erred in precluding cross-examination regarding complaining witness's conviction of harassing defendant because, absent such evidence, the jury lacked information necessary to appraise witness's bias against defendant and motive to fabricate charges against him
• explaining that the “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt” standard requires a “determin[ation of] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed” to the outcome of the case (citation omitted)
• explaining that the \harmless beyond a reasonable doubt\ standard requires a \determin[ation of] whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error complained of might have contributed\ to the outcome of the case (citation omitted)
• \[CW] was central to the prosecution's case. She was the only witness to testify that Balisbisana had abused her.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).