State v. Flemino

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a district court may permit the state to admit evidence of a prior controlled-substance conviction, despite criticism of the whole-person rationale
• concluding that credibility was crucial even though the state had corroborating witnesses because the corroborating witnesses could not testify about crucial events in the case
• noting that the rationale for admitting prior felonies “that do not directly implicate honesty” to allow a jury to assess credibility has been heavily criticized
• noting that the rationale for admitting felonies that do not directly implicate honesty is that they enable a jury to consider a witness’s lack of trustworthiness as shown by the witness’s repeated contempt for the laws which he is bound to obey
• addressing admissibility of prior convictions to impeach a defendant and stating that the need for impeachment is greater “when a defendant’s credibility is crucial” (quotation omitted)
• rejecting defendant’s argument that prior burglary conviction was similar to defendant’s robbery charge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).