39 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s 2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s | 3 | 8 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2011See State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 39 , 48 P.3d 931 (holding that where child testified on limited topics and the defense waived cross-examination, the defendant had an opportunity to confront the child on both the matters addressed during direct examination and the more detailed information contained in the child's videotaped interview); State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353, 1354-55 (Utah 1986) (holding that where the child testified that statements made to a detective were true and the detective testified as to the substance of those statements, the defendant was afforded an opportunity to confront 2010See United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 560 , 108 S.Ct. 838 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988) (holding that the confrontation clause can only be satisfied when the defendant is allowed to employ the "weapons available to impugn the witnesses] statement”); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 420 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965) (holding that “effective confrontation of [a witness] was possible only if [that witness] affirmed the statement as his"); Yanez v. Minnesota, 562 F.3d 958, 963 (8th Cir.2009) (holding that the confrontation clause was satisfied despite the witness’s lack of memory, because | 3 | 4 |
State v. Villarrealgreen2 sentences2015Id. at 418-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 ; see also State v. Villarreal, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995) (finding a Confrontation Clause violation when a co-defendant refused to testify and the prosecutor asked leading questions based on the codefendant's earlier confession). 1 34 Mr. Bond acknowledges that his counsel did not object to the prosecutor's conduct or move for mistrial on Confrontation Clause grounds. 2015Id. at 418-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 ; see also State v. Villarreal, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995) (finding a Confrontation Clause violation when a co-defendant refused to testify and the prosecutor asked leading questions based on the codefendant's earlier confession). 1 34 Mr. Bond acknowledges that his counsel did not object to the prosecutor's conduct or move for mistrial on Confrontation Clause grounds. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Pechtgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 39 , 48 P.3d 931 (holding that where child testified on limited topics and the defense waived cross-examination, the defendant had an opportunity to confront the child on both the matters addressed during direct examination and the more detailed information contained in the child's videotaped interview); State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353, 1354-55 (Utah 1986) (holding that where the child testified that statements made to a detective were true and the detective testified as to the substance of those statements, the defendant was afforded an opportunity to confront 2011See State v. Pecht, 2002 UT 41, ¶ 39 , 48 P.3d 931 (holding that where child testified on limited topics and the defense waived cross-examination, the defendant had an opportunity to confront the child on both the matters addressed during direct examination and the more detailed information contained in the child's videotaped interview); State v. Nelson, 725 P.2d 1353, 1354-55 (Utah 1986) (holding that where the child testified that statements made to a detective were true and the detective testified as to the substance of those statements, the defendant was afforded an opportunity to confront | 2 | 2 |
State v. Webbgreen2 sentences1995State v. Webb, 779 P.2d 1108, 1111-12 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted). 1995State v. Webb, 779 P.2d 1108, 1111-12 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2010Some courts analyzing the confrontation clause have identified the concept of "constitutional unavailability" based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). 2010Some courts analyzing the confrontation clause have identified the concept of "constitutional unavailability" based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 74 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). | 1 | 4 |
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen2 sentences2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s 2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2025In that case, while the nurse was __________________________________________________________ whether law enforcement officers were present and the formality of the exchange.”). 7 See, e.g., State v. Swartz, 17 N.W.3d 174, 187–88 (Neb. 2025) (“[C]ourts have excluded a SANE report, reasoning that a victim’s statements to a sexual assault examiner were testimonial and violate the confrontation clause because of the examiner’s relationship with police or the involvement of the police in the examination process, coupled with the absence of any need for, or provision of, medical treatment during the | 1 | 1 |
Hobgood v. Stategreen1 sentence2025In that case, while the nurse was __________________________________________________________ whether law enforcement officers were present and the formality of the exchange.”). 7 See, e.g., State v. Swartz, 17 N.W.3d 174, 187–88 (Neb. 2025) (“[C]ourts have excluded a SANE report, reasoning that a victim’s statements to a sexual assault examiner were testimonial and violate the confrontation clause because of the examiner’s relationship with police or the involvement of the police in the examination process, coupled with the absence of any need for, or provision of, medical treatment during the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen1 sentence2025In that case, while the nurse was __________________________________________________________ whether law enforcement officers were present and the formality of the exchange.”). 7 See, e.g., State v. Swartz, 17 N.W.3d 174, 187–88 (Neb. 2025) (“[C]ourts have excluded a SANE report, reasoning that a victim’s statements to a sexual assault examiner were testimonial and violate the confrontation clause because of the examiner’s relationship with police or the involvement of the police in the examination process, coupled with the absence of any need for, or provision of, medical treatment during the | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Fieldsgreen1 sentence2020In the end, however, Williams doesn‘t control the outcome of Drommond‘s Confrontation Clause challenge because it ―is a due process, rather than Sixth Amendment, case.‖ United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 327 (5th Cir. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cagegreen2 sentences2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Illinoisred2 sentences2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 | 1 | 1 |
Tennessee v. Streetgreen2 sentences2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 2018See id. at 59 n.9, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (citing Tennessee v. Street , 471 U.S. 409 , 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) ); see also, e.g. , Williams v. Illinois , 567 U.S. 50 , 70, 132 S.Ct. 2221 , 183 L.Ed.2d 89 (2012) (plurality opinion) (" Crawford , while departing from prior Confrontation Clause precedent in other respects, took pains to reaffirm the proposition that the Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted." (quotation simplified) ); People v. Cage , 40 Cal.4th 965 , 56 Cal.Rptr.3d 789 | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dunngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Muellergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Summersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Treacygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bullockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chavezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Napoleon Bustamantegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Camerongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. John Heard, Jr.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Danny Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Hernandezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Hardwickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gulbransengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Crane v. Kentuckygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ozsusamlargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Curtis Lee Mayes, Cross-Appellee v. Dewey Sowders, Warden, Cross-Appellantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Yanez v. Minnesotagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Thomas McCandless v. Donald T. Vaughn the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania District Attorney for Philadelphia Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Owensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. DeBooygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| White v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Richardson v. Marshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Poole
green
2 sentences2016"The district court's decision to admit testimony that may implicate the confrontation clause is also a question of law reviewed for correctness." State v. Poole, 2010 UT 25, ¶ 8 , 232 P.3d 519 . 2016"The district court's decision to admit testimony that may implicate the confrontation clause is also a question of law reviewed for correctness." State v. Poole, 2010 UT 25, ¶ 8 , 232 P.3d 519 . | 3 | 2012–2016 |
Douglas v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 418-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 ; see also State v. Villarreal, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995) (finding a Confrontation Clause violation when a co-defendant refused to testify and the prosecutor asked leading questions based on the codefendant's earlier confession). 1 34 Mr. Bond acknowledges that his counsel did not object to the prosecutor's conduct or move for mistrial on Confrontation Clause grounds. 2015Id. at 418-20 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 ; see also State v. Villarreal, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995) (finding a Confrontation Clause violation when a co-defendant refused to testify and the prosecutor asked leading questions based on the codefendant's earlier confession). 1 34 Mr. Bond acknowledges that his counsel did not object to the prosecutor's conduct or move for mistrial on Confrontation Clause grounds. | 3 | 1988–2015 |
Salt Lake City v. George
green
2 sentences2016But the United States Supreme Court has recognized “that not all hearsay implicates the Sixth Amendment’s core concerns,” which involve “out-of-court statements” that bear “‘witness[ ]’ against the accused” and “those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d *199 177 (2004). “[N]ontestimonial hearsay can be admitted under generally accepted exceptions to the hearsay rule without running afoul of the Sixth Amendment.” Salt Lake City v. George, 2008 UT App 257, ¶ 8 , 189 P.3d 1284 (citation omitted). 2016But the United States Supreme Court has recognized “that not all hearsay implicates the Sixth Amendment’s core concerns,” which involve “out-of-court statements” that bear “‘witness[ ]’ against the accused” and “those who ‘bear testimony.’ ” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d *199 177 (2004). “[N]ontestimonial hearsay can be admitted under generally accepted exceptions to the hearsay rule without running afoul of the Sixth Amendment.” Salt Lake City v. George, 2008 UT App 257, ¶ 8 , 189 P.3d 1284 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2025And Counsel could have reasonably concluded here that even under rule 16, if, 20220135-CA 25 2025 UT App 35 State v. Smith in response to a Confrontation Clause objection, the prosecution had sought to call the analyst who prepared Smith’s DNA profile, the district court would not have excluded that testimony. ¶60 The prosecutor was required to “disclose to the defendant” any “report . . . of any scientific test or experiment” that was “directly related to the case of which the prosecution team [had] knowledge and control,” id. 2025And Counsel could have reasonably concluded here that even under rule 16, if, 20220135-CA 25 2025 UT App 35 State v. Smith in response to a Confrontation Clause objection, the prosecution had sought to call the analyst who prepared Smith’s DNA profile, the district court would not have excluded that testimony. ¶60 The prosecutor was required to “disclose to the defendant” any “report . . . of any scientific test or experiment” that was “directly related to the case of which the prosecution team [had] knowledge and control,” id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Najera
green
1 sentence2025In that case, while the nurse was __________________________________________________________ whether law enforcement officers were present and the formality of the exchange.”). 7 See, e.g., State v. Swartz, 17 N.W.3d 174, 187–88 (Neb. 2025) (“[C]ourts have excluded a SANE report, reasoning that a victim’s statements to a sexual assault examiner were testimonial and violate the confrontation clause because of the examiner’s relationship with police or the involvement of the police in the examination process, coupled with the absence of any need for, or provision of, medical treatment during the | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Vigil
green
2 sentences2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s 2019The State concedes, and we agree, that the admission at trial of Wife’s pretrial statements to the detective violated Salazar’s right to confront Wife because her statements were testimonial in nature, she did not appear at trial, and Salazar had no prior opportunity for cross-examination. 6 See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004). ¶13 Even when, as here, a defendant demonstrates a Confrontation Clause violation, the United States Supreme Court has “repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently s | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. McNeil
green
1 sentence2019Where no affirmative representation is made, and counsel simply fails to object, any error “is not invited but merely unpreserved, and thus remains subject to plain error review.” McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 21 . ¶34 Here, Popp made a single objection to admission of the CJC Interview based on the confrontation clause, then withdrew that objection after learning that F.H. would be present to testify at trial. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Primeaux v. State
green
1 sentence2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. 2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. 2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Chavez v. State
green
2 sentences2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. 2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Yost
green
2 sentences2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. 2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Simmons v. State
green
2 sentences2017Indeed, as referenced above, it appears that the vast majority of preliminary hearings will not. ¶ 43 The State turns our attention to other states that "have similarly held preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness admissible under the confrontation clause." See Simmons v. State , 95 Ark.App. 114 , 234 S.W.3d 321 , 326 (2006) ; 11 People v. Williams , 43 Cal.4th 584 , 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 , 181 P.3d 1035 , 1061 (2008) ; State v. Vinhaca , No. 28571, 2009 WL 1144934 , at *2 (Haw. 2017Indeed, as referenced above, it appears that the vast majority of preliminary hearings will not. ¶ 43 The State turns our attention to other states that "have similarly held preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness admissible under the confrontation clause." See Simmons v. State , 95 Ark.App. 114 , 234 S.W.3d 321 , 326 (2006) ; 11 People v. Williams , 43 Cal.4th 584 , 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 , 181 P.3d 1035 , 1061 (2008) ; State v. Vinhaca , No. 28571, 2009 WL 1144934 , at *2 (Haw. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Aaron
green
1 sentence2017Ct. App. May 22, 2009) ; State v. Young , 277 Kan. 588 , 87 P.3d 308 , 316-17 (Kan. 2004) ; People v. Yost , 278 Mich.App. 341 , 749 N.W.2d 753 , 774-75 (2008) ; State v. Aaron , 218 S.W.3d 501 , 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) ; 12 Chavez v. State , 125 Nev. 328 , 213 P.3d 476 , 482-84 (2009) ; State v.Henderson , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 , 1010-11 (Ct. App. 2006) ; Primeaux v. State , 88 P.3d 893 , 905-06 (Okla. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2017Indeed, as referenced above, it appears that the vast majority of preliminary hearings will not. ¶ 43 The State turns our attention to other states that "have similarly held preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness admissible under the confrontation clause." See Simmons v. State , 95 Ark.App. 114 , 234 S.W.3d 321 , 326 (2006) ; 11 People v. Williams , 43 Cal.4th 584 , 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 , 181 P.3d 1035 , 1061 (2008) ; State v. Vinhaca , No. 28571, 2009 WL 1144934 , at *2 (Haw. 2017Indeed, as referenced above, it appears that the vast majority of preliminary hearings will not. ¶ 43 The State turns our attention to other states that "have similarly held preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness admissible under the confrontation clause." See Simmons v. State , 95 Ark.App. 114 , 234 S.W.3d 321 , 326 (2006) ; 11 People v. Williams , 43 Cal.4th 584 , 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 , 181 P.3d 1035 , 1061 (2008) ; State v. Vinhaca , No. 28571, 2009 WL 1144934 , at *2 (Haw. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. McCallie green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Garrido green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Bond green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Chapman v. California red | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Calliham
green
2 sentences2016If Clark had preserved her Confrontation Clause claim at trial, and if she could establish a constitutional violation on appeal, the burden would shift to the State to demonstrate that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, See State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, ¶ 12 , 369 P.3d 103 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); and State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 45 , 55 P.3d 573 ). 2016If Clark had preserved her Confrontation Clause claim at trial, and if she could establish a constitutional violation on appeal, the burden would shift to the State to demonstrate that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, See State v. McCallie, 2016 UT App 4, ¶ 12 , 369 P.3d 103 (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); and State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 45 , 55 P.3d 573 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Griffin green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Rhinehart green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Marks green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Worwood green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Quinonez-Gaiton green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Barber v. Page green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Calliham green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Davis v. Alaska green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Brooks green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Idaho v. Wright green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Reynolds v. United States green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| United States v. Donald Laverne Carlson, United States of America v. Gary Clarend Hofstad green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Lafferty green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Lee v. Illinois green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Chambers v. Mississippi green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Myers v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.