State v. Haugen
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Davis v. AlaskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Douglas v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Greene v. McElroySupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- State v. KentNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1895
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.