Personal injury complaint arising from car accident; plaintiff’s prior workers’ compensation claim was relevant to allege aggravated injury from car accident; if plaintiff raises a material issue during the direct examination of its witnesses, defendant cannot be prevented from discussing the same issue during cross-examination or rebuttal; trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling motion for a new trial when jury verdict was based primarily on plaintiff’s credibility and when that was undermined by plaintiff’s contradictory testimony.
In litigation setting forth claims under Magnuson-Moss Warranty, Consumer Sales Practices and Lemon Law acts, trial court erred when it excluded cross-examination of plaintiff concerning offers to repair vehicle, which had been the subject of direct examination. This line of questioning was relevant to the issue of defendant’s undue delay in effecting repairs. Various other assigned errors are either harmless or not well-taken. Judgment reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.
A person's character is always hard to define. If presented carelessly at trial, it can appear to be something of a morass - a confusing and unchartable territory that does not lend itself to sure footing. In the wake of a rambling direct examination or an eviscerating cross of a character witness, a defendant may appear to be affectionate and cruel, responsible and reckless, courteous and anti-social, all at once. Contradictions are human, but a careful presentation of character evidence can pinpoint with authority the precise aspects of a person that your case requires.
Rape Shield law, 2907.02(D), does not require the exclusion of evidence of prior sexual activity between the victim and the alleged offender, if offered by the offender for a relevant purpose. It also does not require the exclusion of evidence of prior untrue allegations by the victim, against an individual other than the alleged offender, of sexual misconduct. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it ruled that this evidence was inadmissible pursuant to the Rape Shield law. Trial court erred in overruling objection to portion of State’s opening statement in which prosecutor asked jurors to “put yourself in the victim’s shoes.” This is an improper invocation of juror sympathy. Trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial based upon State’s reference to prior, ...
... THE COURT IMPROPERLY LIMITED CROSS- EXAMINATION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS BY THE .... pictures was asked during the State's re-direct examination of the victim. We further note that s...
... includes an implied right--located directly in the Compulsory Process Clause--to present the w...(40) On cross-examination, the State elicited the following facts: (1) McDon...
... federal criminal law is a matter not yet directly addressed by the Court. . . Right to a Speedy a... of and infliction of harms to both defendants and society. The provision is "an important safegu... of these standards were open to re-examination, and in subsequent cases it has done so. In Will...
Defendants conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when the greater weight of evidence supported the theory that he had pushed the victim in front of an automobile, causing her serious injury. The defendants recollection was properly refreshed by showing him a videotape of a suppressed interview outside the presence of the jury. The defendant was properly impeached with previously suppressed statements when he had made contradictory statements on direct examination. The jury instructions on causation were proper based on the facts of the case. Judgment affirmed.
... . At the conclusion of petitioner's direct testimony in his state-court trial for murder and ... that a trial court's order directing a defendant not to consult his attorney during an overnight re... his client between direct and cross-examination. Subsequently, the Federal District Court granted ...
... trial and admitted the prior conviction on direct examination. The jury convicted her. In affirming,...Held: A defendant who pre-emptively introduces evidence of a prior c...
In any personal injury case where the plaintiff receives compensation from a source other than the defendant, an issue arises as to the amount of money the defendant should be required to pay in order to compensate the plaintiff fully for the injuries inflicted. This paper discusses the application of the collateral source rule to an award for personal injury damages for a plaintiff who received government benefits based on that injury. Almost all states have both statutes and case law that set guidelines for the introduction of collateral source payments received by the plaintiff in an effort to limit the prejudicial effects of those payments. This paper highlights differences in approaches among the selected states.
...[A] benefit that is directed to the injured party should not be shifted so as t... in the presence of a jury on direct examination that the injuries inflicted upon plaintiff by the ...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
banco | Surabaya Institute | Esselte | Securent, Inc. | Fountain Powerboat Industries, Inc. | merlín | Lecques | alcalde cabras | articulos seguridad social | Protección de la salud
