State v. Query

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding the State needed the prior bad acts evidence to rebut defendant’s claims the acts were innocent or accidental
• finding the State needed prior-bad-acts evidence to show intent and rebut claims the acts were innocent or accidental
• noting that there is rarely direct proof of criminal intent
• stating the jury’s findings of guilt are binding if supported by substantial evidence
• prior bad acts could be reasonably interpreted as grooming, showing defendant's motive, intent, plan knowledge, or absence of mistake
• prior bad acts could be reasonably interpreted as grooming, showing defendant's motive, intent, plan knowledge, or absence of mistake

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).