Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fratzke v. Meyergreen2 sentences2021See Fratzke v. Meyer, 398 N.W.2d 200, 205 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986). 2018See Fratzke, 398 N.W.2d at 206 (concluding statements made fifteen to twenty minutes between a car accident and subsequent statement were substantially contemporaneous and within the ambit of the present sense impression exception). 8 We agree with the district court that the daughter’s statements were made “immediately thereafter” perceiving the events, as that phrase is understood under the rules of evidence. | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Shanna Dessingergreen2 sentences2022“The rationale behind the present sense impression exception is that the declarant has no opportunity to fabricate a statement if the statement is made during or ‘immediately’ after the event.” Dessinger, 958 N.W.2d at 600. 2022“The rationale behind the present sense impression exception is that the declarant has no opportunity to fabricate a statement if the statement is made during or ‘immediately’ after the event.” State v. Dessinger, 958 N.W.2d 590 , 600 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., State v. Smith, 909 P.2d 236, 240 (Utah 1995) (holding that a present sense impression exception requires the statement to be “strictly contemporaneous” with the event). 2021See, e.g., State v. Smith, 909 P.2d 236, 240 (Utah 1995) (holding that a present sense impression exception requires the statement to be “strictly contemporaneous” with the event). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Tangiegreen1 sentence2022See State v. Tangie, 616 N.W.2d 564, 569 (Iowa 2000) (determining that findings on preliminary questions as to applicability of a hearsay exception are implicit in the district court’s ruling to admit the evidence). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fleshergreen1 sentence2018The present sense impression exception is based upon the theory “that substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negate the likelihood of deliberate or conscious misrepresentation.” State v. Flesher, 286 N.W.2d 215, 217 (1979) (quoting the Advisory Committee Note, Fed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.