State v. Hart

[¶ 31.] I dissent. The trial court made two improper rulings by allowing inadmissible character evidence which painted Hart as a mean, tough drunk and Chips as a peaceable, innocuous man. The trial court compounded these errors by improperly refusing to allow

Hart to impeach and counter the unfair and prejudicial testimony -with evidence of Chips’ violent history. We should reverse and remand for a new trial.

[¶ 32.] The evidence erroneously admitted came in through the testimony of two witnesses during State’s case-in-chief. The State’s Attorney asked Olivia Hart, Defendant’s wife, who she…