State v. Pulizzano

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was violated by the trial court's exclusion of defense evidence that the child complainant's sexual knowledge resulted from a previous sexual assault
• holding that the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense was violated by the trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence that the child complainant’s sexual knowledge resulted from a previous sexual assault
• holding that an offer of proof under the sexual innocence inference theory must show that the prior acts clearly occurred and that the acts closely resembled those of the present case
• concluding that prior sexual acts—particularly, “fondling and ‘sodomy of the penis,’ which include[d] fellatio, and ‘possibly’ anal penetration”— closely resembled allegations of “fondling, fellatio, anal penetration with an object, and digital vaginal penetration”
• suggesting that evidence of battering syndrome to demonstrate propensity of defendant to engage in acts consistent with that profile requires testimony of an expert
• suggesting that evidence of battering syndrome to demonstrate propensity of defendant to engage in acts consistent with that profile requires testimony of an expert

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).