Vehorn 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 explicit assurance given at pretrial hearing was an exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement
• “Oral motions in limine suffice for purposes of evidentiary rulings.”
• defendant had put victim’s state of mind at issue
• “It makes no difference whether counsel had a reasonable expectation that the trial court would change its ruling upon objection. Instead, the proper inquiry is whether the trial court would have had no choice but to sustain the objection; that is, whether the evidence should have been excluded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).