Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): cite Nance in his Rule 104 brief. Our conclusion is buttressed by the original trial court’s use of its discretion in handling the Cyco evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court’s independent review of the issue on appeal, the PCR court’s thorough and well-reasoned discussion of the issue, the district court’s analysis denying habeas relief, and the overwhelming evidence against Pfau. We are confident the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the limited evidence abou *4 (Iowa Ct.App. Nov.16, 2001) (unpublished) (concluding “evidence of a victim’s gang membership is not inherently prejudicial” in a “case where no evidence was introduced regarding the defendant’s membership in a gang”); State v. Allen, No. 98-2012, 2000 WL 767686, at *2 (Iowa Ct.App. June 14, 2000) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). Instead, Nance announced that “evidence of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting police reports in civil case under publicrecords exception (B) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in its admitting extraneous evidence to rebut a defensive theory (C) holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence (D) holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes (E) holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony
Output (English): holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony