Court of Appeals of Iowa· 4/30/1999

State v. Wixom

Citations

599 N.W.2d 481
1999 Iowa App. LEXIS 20
1999 WL 595462

How courts have described this case

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

concluding evidence of indigency was relevant to cast doubt on defendant’s assertion that he was not a drug dealer, which related to the charged offense
“When evidence is merely cumulative, it cannot be said to injuriously affect the complaining party’s rights.”
“To warrant reversal, an error must have prejudiced the defendant. When evidence is merely cumulative, it cannot be said to injuriously affect the complaining party’s rights.”
“Evidence a defendant is indigent and represented by court-appointed counsel may be more prejudicial than probative if used merely to portray the defendant as an indigent.”
“To warrant reversal, an error must have prejudiced the defendant. When evidence is merely cumulative, it cannot be said to injuriously affect the complaining party’s rights.” (internal citation omitted)
“[A]ll Turecek hearsay violations are reviewed for errors at law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sackett, Huitink, Streit, Vogel, Mahan, Zimmer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

12 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

19 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.