State v. DAUGARD

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the testimony of the defendant’s coworkers concerning prior interactions with the victim and his work restrictions was “relevant because it cast doubt on his defense of mistake or accident”
• allowing defendant’s coworkers to testify about prior interactions between the victim and defendant because it was relevant to the defense of mistake or 8 accident
• finding no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of prior bad acts to rebut a claim of mistake or accident a defendant made in statements to law enforcement when confronted with the allegations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).