State v. Haarala

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 police officer could testify as a lay witness that the shoeprints he observed \were of the same pattern as would have been made by the defendant's shoes\
• other crimes evidence may be admissible \[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.\
• other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.”
• other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.”
• other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.”
• other crimes evidence may be admissible “[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by placing it in the context of nearby and nearly contemporaneous happenings.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).