State v. Riels

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statement of remorse did not open the door to cross- examination regarding the details of the murders
• holding that the defendant’s statement during the sentencing hearing that he did not want to hurt anybody was an expression of remorse and not a denial of guilt and that therefore it did not open door to cross-examination about the circumstances of the crime
• concluding the defendant was not in custody when he arrived with his mother, was not prevented from leaving the interview room, was left unattended for large amounts of time, and was treated cordially
• trial court erred in ruling that defendant opened the door to unlimited cross-examination concerning details of the crime after defendant expressed remorse to the victims’ families
• trial court erred in ruling that defendant opened the door to unlimited cross-examination concerning details of the crime after defendant expressed remorse to the victims’ families
• “[T]rial judges should always use restraint and not interject themselves into a role in a trial which may be perceived as that of an advocate rather than an impartial arbiter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).