Wissman v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to find custodial interrogation occurred when officers asked Wissman what happened while he was lying on the floor, injured, and unable to move, because it was “for information, not a question used to elicit a confession”
• “Officer Schollian’s general inquiry of what happened was for information, not a question used to elicit a confession from appellant. Thus this is not a case of custodial interrogation.”
• no error in allowing pathologist to testify to the angle of the gunshot wound, although the pathologist lacked specialized training in ballistics, because the lack of that specialized training went to the weight of the testimony, not admissibility, in light of his other qualifications

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).