Skip to main content

State v. DuBray

Citations

  • 2003 MT 255
  • 77 P.3d 247
  • 317 Mont. 377
  • 2003 Mont. LEXIS 435

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding, based on Rule 901(b)(7), that known fingerprint card of person that defendant attempted to cast suspicion upon was properly authenticated given it was taken and preserved by law enforcement and, thus, constituted a “public report or record”
  • defendant sought to present expert testimony regarding possible benefits that incarcerated inmate may receive for favorable testimony
  • defendant sought to present expert testimony regarding possible benefits that incarcerated inmate may receive for favorable testimony
  • “It shall be an abuse of discretion for a district court to disallow expert testimony on eyewitness testimony when no substantial corroborating evidence exists.”
  • “It shall be an abuse of discretion for a district court to disallow expert testimony on eyewitness testimony when no substantial corroborating evidence exists.”
  • \It shall be an abuse of discretion for a district court to disallow expert testimony on eyewitness testimony when no substantial corroborating evidence exists.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jim Regnier

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.