The Supreme Court appropriately rejected the defense contention that the only purpose for introducing testimony concerning the individual defendant's inhalation of nitrous oxide was to engender bias. Since the testimony elicited from some of the witnesses could have reasonably led the jury to conclude that this substance, a sedative that results in a slowing down of reactions, contributed to the alleged malpractice, evidence of its inhalation was relevant to the question...
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.
