State v. Lund

How courts have described this case

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

• reaching similar conclusion where defendant's proposed cross-examination of young victim about a prior sexual assault would have had little, if any, probative value while causing great trauma to young victim and creating risk of confusing the issues for the jury
• reaching similar conclusion where defendant’s proposed cross-examination of young victim about a prior sexual assault would have had little, if any, probative value while causing great trauma to young victim and creating risk of confusing the issues for the jury
• “[I]f the evidence is not relevant or unduly prejudicial, it is inadmissible and the Confrontation Clause may not be invoked to change that result.”
• \The trial court has discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible.\
• “The trial court has discretion in determining whether evidence is relevant and admissible.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• State v. Willis
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 2006-11-22· cited 11×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Davis v. Alaska
  Supreme Court· 1974-02-27· cited 5,953×
• State v. Catsam
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1987-08-14· cited 108×
• State v. Patnaude
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1981-11-03· cited 58×
• State v. French
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1989-06-30· cited 20×
• State v. Beckenbach
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1978-11-13· cited 7×
• State v. Lavalette
  Supreme Court of Vermont· 1990-06-08· cited 6×