State v. Rammel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that detective’s testimony about another witness’s truthfulness “[b]ased on his experience interviewing several hundred criminal suspects” was inadmissible expert opinion
• limiting further cross-examination was not prejudicial error because it would not have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict
• limiting further cross-examination was not prejudicial error because it would not have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict
• excluding impeachment testimony where potential for prejudice substantially outweighed its probative value under substantially similar predecessor rule to modern rule 403
• finding error harmless where “it is unlikely that the excluded testimony prejudiced the defendant’s rights in a substantial manner”
• while admission of “expert’s” testimony was erroneous, “its admission was harmless in view of the other evidence supporting defendant’s conviction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).