State v. Iorg

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that testimony that “was clearly calculated to bolster [the victim’s] believability” in a case that “hinged on credibility” was prejudicial
• holding the district court erred in allowing bolstering testimony because it was not more probative than prejudicial
• recognizing prejudicial error in the admission of bolstering evidence in a child sex abuse case where the \case hinged on credibility\
• determining that a police officer’s testimony was not more probative than prejudicial when it was based on “her anecdotal statistical experience with late reporting in sexual abuse cases” (emphasis added) (quotation simplified)
• trial court’s admission or rejection of evidence will not be disturbed unless the court has clearly abused its discretion
• trial court's admission or rejection of evidence will not be disturbed unless the court has clearly abused its discretion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).