5 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence2007As Aaron concedes on appeal, pre-Crawford Missouri decisions have consistently held that testimony of an unavailable declarant given at a properly held preliminary hearing affords “substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” State v. Holt, 592 S.W.2d 759, 766 (Mo. banc 1980); See also State v. Griffin, 848 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Mo. banc 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holtgreen2 sentences2007“This exception has been explained as arising from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Id. at 766 (quoting Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 ). 2007As Aaron concedes on appeal, pre-Crawford Missouri decisions have consistently held that testimony of an unavailable declarant given at a properly held preliminary hearing affords “substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” State v. Holt, 592 S.W.2d 759, 766 (Mo. banc 1980); See also State v. Griffin, 848 S.W.2d 464, 470 (Mo. banc 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lindsaygreen1 sentence2007Thus, although both the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and the opportunity for the jury to observe the same are embraced by the right to confrontation, “[t]he opportunity to cross-examine is indispensable to the exercise of the right, while the opportunity for the jury to observe the witness is an interest which gives way to considerations of necessity — as where the witness is unavailable.” State v. Lindsay, 709 S.W.2d 499, 504 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
California v. Greenred2 sentences1998See id.; see also California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1939 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (where a witness has died or is otherwise unavailable the Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting preliminary hearing testimony in evidence where the right of cross-examination at the preliminary hearing provided substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement and as long as the declarant’s inability to give live testimony at trial is no way the fault of the State). 1998See id.; see also California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 165 , 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1939 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970) (where a witness has died or is otherwise unavailable the Confrontation Clause is not violated by admitting preliminary hearing testimony in evidence where the right of cross-examination at the preliminary hearing provided substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement and as long as the declarant’s inability to give live testimony at trial is no way the fault of the State). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence1980In State v. Phillips, 511 S.W.2d 841, 847 (Mo.1974), we held that for the purpose of admitting into evidence prior testimony under this limited exception to the confrontation requirement, a witness is “unavailable” by reason of asserting his privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences1977State v. Barnes, 274 Mo. 625 , 204 S.W. 267, 268 (1918). 1977State v. Barnes, 274 Mo. 625 , 204 S.W. 267, 268 (1918). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences2019This exception “aris[es] from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Id. (citing Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 ). 2007“This exception has been explained as arising from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Id. at 766 (quoting Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 ). | 3 | 1980–2019 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences2019This exception “aris[es] from necessity and has been justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.” Id. (citing Barber, 390 U.S. at 722 ). 2007Holt , in turn, cites to State v. Murphy, 592 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. banc 1979), which applied the same rule of admissibility to the prior trial testimony of two witnesses whom the prosecutor was unable to produce at the defendant’s retrial. 592 S.W.2d at 731. | 2 | 2007–2019 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2007Crawford , however, proclaims that the principles of Missouri’s prior analysis fail to satisfy the sole command of the Confrontation Clause. 541 U.S. at 60 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2007Crawford , however, proclaims that the principles of Missouri’s prior analysis fail to satisfy the sole command of the Confrontation Clause. 541 U.S. at 60 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.