Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Stinehart v. State

Wyoming Supreme Court

Decided November 10, 1986No. 86-128Published

1ConcurrenceUrbigkit, Justice

Generally concurring with the court, I would, however, not approve of the eviden-tiary exclusion of the prior statement of the victim when offered by the defendant to “corroborate his testimony.”

Relevant evidence, when challenged as cumulative, is, as to the tendering party, favorable, neutral, or unfavorable. If clearly favorable, rejection is error, and probably cause for reversal if properly documented in the record. Neutral evidence could probably be considered by the trial court to be only cumulative. However, if, for whatever reason tendered, the court may perceive that the evidence is…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gordon v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
  2. Martin v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Abraham Williams v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1968
  4. Tucker v. Wyoming Coal Mining Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API