Corroboration of Accomplice
Affirming the defendant’s conviction for 1st degree robbery, the Court affirms a District Court finding that although a witness was an accomplice to a drug deal, he was not an accomplice to the actual robbery and therefore there was no legal requirement to corroborate the witness’s testimony. However, the Court finds that there was corroboration of the witness’s testimony. State v. Ali
Conduct After Assault
Affirming defendant’s conviction of 2nd degree assault, the Court finds no error in admitting relationship evidence of domestic assault conduct that occurred after the assault and after the relationship had ended. The statute does not impose a restriction on admitting only prior relationship evidence. State v. Russell
Accomplice Testimony Corroboration
Affirming defendant’s conviction of 1st degree aggravated robbery, the Court rejects the defendant’s claim that the conviction was based on uncorroborated accomplice testimony. The jury could have reasonably concluded that the two witnesses were not accomplices and therefore their testimony did not need to be corroborated. State v. Goodman
Expert Witness – Vouching Testimony
In defendant’s trial for criminal sexual conduct, the District Court permitted an expert witness to testify about her specific observations of the victim, including remarking on the sincerity of the victim’s fear. There was no notice that expert testimony would be offered for this purpose and the Court finds that testimony was impermissible vouching testimony, the admission of which affected defendant’s substantial rights warranting reversal of the defendant’s conviction. State v. Williams
