Skip to main content

State v. Stringham

Citations

  • 957 P.2d 602
  • 341 Utah Adv. Rep. 14
  • 1998 Utah App. LEXIS 28
  • 1998 WL 225147

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 trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to pose a hypothetical scenario to an expert witness “consisting of the exact actions of which [the] defendant was accused” in order to ask the expert “to give an opinion as to whether the[] actions were illegal” (emphasis omitted
  • explaining that such, testimony could “easily” mislead a jury
  • citation 6. Chapman did not object to Hines’s qualifications to testify as an expert witness. Consequently, there is no issue of qualification in this case. 20120137-CA 8 2014 UT App 255 State v. Chapman and internal quotation marks omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davis, Wilkins, Orme

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.