Supreme Court of Iowa· 5/16/1984

State v. Harrington

Citations

349 N.W.2d 758
1984 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1148

How courts have described this case

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

holding that because defense counsel “explained the purpose and theory of the excluded evidence” at the hearing on his motion for a new trial, the court “can treat the record then made as the missing offer of proof’
applying harmless error rule to district court’s refusal to permit defendant to make offer of proof
“A juror may not by affidavit, testimony or otherwise state what influenced the jury in reaching its decision or verdict, as such showing inheres in the verdict.”
“We do not find an abuse of discretion . . . unless the action of the trial court is clearly unreasonable under the attendant circumstances.”
“We do not find an abuse of discretion . . . unless the action of the trial court is clearly unreasonable under the attendant circumstances.”
sentence vacated where court failed to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Uhlenhopp, Harris, McCormick, McGiverin, Larson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.