State v. Hamala

How courts have described this case

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

• noting, in evaluating a double jeopardy issue, that this court had previously concluded that testimony that the defendant had previously shot two people “was highly prejudicial”
• testimony regarding prior bad acts elicited by prosecutor was improper and highly prejudicial warranting reversal of conviction, but such conduct did not bar retrial
• testimony regarding prior bad acts elicited by prosecutor was improper and highly prejudicial warranting reversal of conviction, but such conduct did not bar retrial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).