Swarb v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that looking inside vehicle, even with the use of flashlight, does not implicate Fourth Amendment protections or prevent application of plain-view doctrine
• providing that under a Rule 403 balancing test, contextual evidence is rarely inadmissible if it sets the stage for the jury’s understanding of the whole criminal transaction
• determining that evidence of an arrest warrant unrelated to the charged offense was admissible
• explaining that “[t]here are two types of contextual evidence: (1) evidence of other offenses connected with the primary offense, referred to as same transaction contextual evidence; and (2) general background evidence, referred to as background contextual evidence”
• stating same transaction contextual evidence is admissible as probative when the evidence sets the stage for the jury’s comprehension of the criminal offense
• finding prosecutor = s statement A [w]hen [defense attorneys] can = t convince you, they try to confuse you @ was proper invited argument

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).