Tolliver v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disclosure to the defendant is not required if the witness testifies favorably only with the hope or expectation of leniency
• noting that any error in admitting hearsay statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was harmless where independent eyewitness testimony identified Tolliver as the shooter and other testimony linked Tolliver to the type of gun used to kill the victim
• noting that any error in admitting hearsay statements as statements against interest under Ind. Evidence Rule 804(b)(3) was harmless where independent eyewitness testimony identified Tolliver as the shooter and other testimony linked Tolliver to the type of gun used to kill the victim
• hearsay statements were not considered as statements against interest when they were not “incriminating on their face and [did] not implicate [defendant] in a crime”
• when basis for the alleged bias is purely speculative and unsupported by evidence, no error when defendant is limited in his cross-examination
• trial court did not err in denying defense‟s motion for continuance during trial where subpoenaed witness who failed to appear had clearly demonstrated his unwillingness to “come anywhere near police officers 8 or the court system”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).