Recent Development: Brooks v. State: Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Oral Statement Must Be Verbatim Unless Previously Adopted or Ratified by the Declarant; A Witness’ Statement Suggesting Evidence Corroborated a Complainant’s Story May Be Harmless Error if Not Intended to Imply Truthfulness; Separate Charges Must Be Merged for Sentencing if Not Unambiguously Based on Different Acts

Authors

Stephanie Lurz

Recommended Citation

Lurz, Stephanie (2015) "Recent Development: Brooks v. State: Extrinsic Evidence of a Prior Inconsistent Oral Statement Must Be Verbatim Unless Previously Adopted or Ratified by the Declarant; A Witness’ Statement Suggesting Evidence Corroborated a Complainant’s Story May Be Harmless Error if Not Intended to Imply Truthfulness; Separate Charges Must Be Merged for Sentencing if Not Unambiguously Based on Different Acts," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 45: No. 2, Article 5.
Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol45/iss2/5