State v. Bruno Gibson (072257)

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 better practice is to conduct two separate proceedings unless both sides consent and defense counsel is given wide latitude in cross-examining the State's witnesses
• concluding that the defendant could not invoke his Sixth Amendment right to challenge the admission of hearsay during a suppression hearing because the right was \inapplicable\ to the proceeding
• discussing the practice of conducting a trial on evidence presented in a pre- trial suppression hearing
• reversing the defendant's conviction where he never consented to conducting the suppression motion during trial and defense counsel was never given the opportunity to cross-examine the State's witness
• allowing that procedure in a drunk-driving prosecution
• \A single error or a combination of errors in a pre-trial proceeding or a trial or both may require an appellate court to reverse the conviction and to remand for a new trial.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).