State v. IBAN C.

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that diagnosis was based on witness reports, not on physical examination
• ‘‘a party is precluded from asserting the constitutional rights of another’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• ‘‘a confession, if sufficiently corroborated, is the most damaging evi- dence of guilt’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]
• “[w]e have never stated that . . . expert testimony [that a victim’s injury was consistent with sexual abuse] is inadmissible”
• improper admission of expert testimony that five year old complainant had been diagnosed with child sexual abuse was not harmless error because complainant’s ‘‘credibility was central to the state’s case,’’ and there was lack of corroborative evidence
• improper admission of expert testimony that five year old complainant had been diagnosed with child sexual abuse was not harmless error because complainant’s ‘‘credibility was central to the state’s case,’’ and there was lack of corroborative evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).