State v. LaBranche

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that repeated testimony about a second incident of attempted sexual assault that was the basis of a properly severed indictment was inadmissible and sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial
• holding that witnesses’ testimony about defendant’s pending charge of attempted aggravated felonious sexual assault during trial on separate charge of aggravated felonious sexual assault was “inadmissible and sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial”
• holding that testimony relating to a pending AFSA charge warranted a new trial when “the jury could easily discern that the defendant was allegedly culpable for other instances of criminal conduct closely related to the charge before it”
• holding that testimony relating to a pending AFSA charge warranted a new trial when “the jury could easily discern that the defendant was allegedly culpable for other instances of criminal conduct closely related to the charge before it”
• granting a motion for mistrial due to testimony from two witnesses that the defendant was allegedly culpable for other instances of criminal conduct closely related to the charge for which he stood trial
• granting a motion for mistrial due to testimony from two witnesses that the defendant was allegedly culpable for other instances of criminal conduct closely related to the charge for which he stood trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).