State v. Voits

How courts have described this case

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

• “A limit- ing instructing often is an appropriate means to safeguard against jury misuse of evidence that is admissible to show [one thing] but is inadmissible for other purposes.”
• “The Supreme Court has explained that statements that constitute circumstantial evidence of the declarant’s state of mind, as well as statements directly addressing the declarant’s state of mind, are hearsay assertions admissible under OEC 803(3
• “much of the contextual or ‘background’ material, * * * although * * * relevant as an aid to understanding, * * * constituted neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of the victim’s state of mind * * * and therefore was not offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).