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 2019–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Trent D. Smithgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874 , 879 (Iowa 2019) (“ ‘The State, as the proponent of the evidence, has the burden’ to establish the testimony comes within the exception to the rule.” (quoting Smith, 876 N.W.2d at 189 )); State v. Cagley, 638 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 2001) (“The State, as proponent of the hearsay evidence, has the burden of proving it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.”). 2021On appeal, Price argues that “[e]mergency calls are generally admissible as hearsay exceptions under present sense impression and/or excited utterances.” But it is not enough that “testimony of this type is frequently admitted into evidence” as “there is no categorical rule allowing such testimony.” State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874 , 879 (Iowa 2019). “‘[T]he proponent of the evidence[] has the burden’ to establish the testimony comes within the exception to the [hearsay] rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 180, 189 (Iowa 2016)). | 4 | 4 |
State of Iowa v. Lawrence Eugene Walkergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874 , 879 (Iowa 2019) (“ ‘The State, as the proponent of the evidence, has the burden’ to establish the testimony comes within the exception to the rule.” (quoting Smith, 876 N.W.2d at 189 )); State v. Cagley, 638 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 2001) (“The State, as proponent of the hearsay evidence, has the burden of proving it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.”). 2021On appeal, Price argues that “[e]mergency calls are generally admissible as hearsay exceptions under present sense impression and/or excited utterances.” But it is not enough that “testimony of this type is frequently admitted into evidence” as “there is no categorical rule allowing such testimony.” State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874 , 879 (Iowa 2019). “‘[T]he proponent of the evidence[] has the burden’ to establish the testimony comes within the exception to the [hearsay] rule.” Id. (quoting State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 180, 189 (Iowa 2016)). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Cagleygreen1 sentence2024See State v. Walker, 935 N.W.2d 874 , 879 (Iowa 2019) (“ ‘The State, as the proponent of the evidence, has the burden’ to establish the testimony comes within the exception to the rule.” (quoting Smith, 876 N.W.2d at 189 )); State v. Cagley, 638 N.W.2d 678, 681 (Iowa 2001) (“The State, as proponent of the hearsay evidence, has the burden of proving it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.”). | 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.