State v. Marrington

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that when “swearing con- test” was the central issue in sexual abuse case, erroneously admitted expert testimony related to delayed reporting was not harmless
• holding that the erroneous admission of expert testimony was reversible because the case “involved a swearing contest” in which the victim claimed that the defendant touched her, and he testified in his own defense that he did not
• determining that, when there was noth- ing in the record to indicate that erroneously admitted tes- timony “played no role in the trial court’s assessment,” the error was not harmless
• holding error related to a “central factual issue” was not harmless
• evaluating whether there was little likelihood that the trial court’s legal error in admitting testimony affected the court’s verdict in a bench trial
• using the “vocabulary” of science is relevant to deter- mine whether there exists increased potential to influence the trier of fact as scientific assertions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).