Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Haugen

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1990No. Crim. 890306Published

1ConcurrenceMeschke, Justice

I concur that the trial court’s error in limiting Haugen’s cross-examination of Helferich was harmless under NDRCrimP 52(a). I write separately to emphasize the constitutional importance of cross-examination for an accused and to stress the function of motive in assessing credibility of a witness.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” State v. Reinart, 440 N.W.2d 503, 506 (N.D.1989); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). The confrontation clause secures the accused’s right of…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Douglas v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  4. Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  5. State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API