State v. Haglund

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a witness’s testimony that a defendant had previously been incarcerated was not reversible error because the testimony was not intentionally elicited, the statement was “of a passing nature,” and the evidence in [the] case was overwhelming”
• declining to reverse an aggravated-robbery conviction in part because the State’s evidence was overwhelming based on “positive testimony” and “strong corroborating evidence,” including testimony about physical evidence
• declining to reverse an aggravated-robbery conviction in part because the State’s evidence was overwhelming based on “positive testimony” and “strong corroborating evidence,” including testimony about physical evidence
• declining to reverse an aggravated-robbery conviction in part because the State’s evidence was overwhelming based on “positive testimony” and “strong corroborating evidence,” including testimony about physical evidence
• declining to reverse an aggravated-robbery conviction in part because the State’s evidence was overwhelming based on “positive testimony” and “strong corroborating evidence,” including testimony about physical evidence
• declining to reverse an aggravated-robbery conviction in part because the State’s evidence was overwhelming based on “positive testimony” and “strong corroborating evidence,” including testimony about physical evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).