State v. Pikul

How courts have described this case

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

• admission of codefendants' testimony that they had pleaded guilty, held improper and highly prejudicial
• State’s evidence on direct examination disclosing that a codefendant had been convicted of the same charge against the defendant “not only was improper but was highly prejudicial. [Admitting such evidence] was erroneous and harmful and necessitates a new trial.”
• State's evidence on direct examination disclosing that a codefendant had been convicted of the same charge against the defendant \not only was improper but was highly prejudicial. [Admitting such evidence] was erroneous and harmful and necessitates a new trial.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).