We agree with the defendant that the court improperly admitted into evidence testimony that the police officer, who had observed defendant threatening another man with the weapon, was, at the time of his observation, engaged in drug activity surveillance of the premises where defendant was observed. This evidence of "background material" was not necessary to provide a complete picture of the events so as to prevent the jury from speculating as to why the officer observed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
