firmly rooted hearsay exception in Arizona

29 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2008 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ohio v. Robertsred scotus · 1980 · cited in 17 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1983–2006 2 sentences 2006The Court noted that under Roberts, such indicia of reliability is satisfied when the evidence either “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ). ¶ 18 Concluding that the “reliability” factors in Roberts were “unpredictable and inconsistent,” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , the Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence 2006The Court noted that under Roberts, such indicia of reliability is satisfied when the evidence either “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ). ¶ 18 Concluding that the “reliability” factors in Roberts were “unpredictable and inconsistent,” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , the Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence	3	17
State v. Luzanillagreen ariz · 1994 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1996–2008 2 sentences 2008Tucker, 205 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 41, 68 P.3d at 118 . ¶ 61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)). 2008Tucker, 205 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 41, 68 P.3d at 118 . ¶ 61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)).	3	3
State v. Woodgreen ariz · 1994 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2000–2003 2 sentences 2003Bass, 198 Ariz. at 580, ¶ 36 , 12 P.3d at 805 ; see also State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 64 , 881 P.2d 1158, 1169 (1994). 2003Bass, 198 Ariz. at 580, ¶ 36 , 12 P.3d at 805 ; see also State v. Wood, 180 Ariz. 53, 64 , 881 P.2d 1158, 1169 (1994).	2	2
United States v. Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Vera Lee Peacock and Harvey Coleman Peacockgreen ca5 · 1981 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984See, e.g., United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 349 (5th Cir.1981). 1984See, e.g., United States v. Peacock, 654 F.2d 339, 349 (5th Cir.1981).	2	2
Idaho v. Wrightgreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1994–2008 2 sentences 2008Tucker, 205 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 41, 68 P.3d at 118 . ¶ 61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)). 2008Tucker, 205 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 41, 68 P.3d at 118 . ¶ 61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)).	1	5
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 5 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2005–2006 2 sentences 2006The Court noted that under Roberts, such indicia of reliability is satisfied when the evidence either “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ). ¶ 18 Concluding that the “reliability” factors in Roberts were “unpredictable and inconsistent,” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , the Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence 2006The Court noted that under Roberts, such indicia of reliability is satisfied when the evidence either “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bears “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. (quoting Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 ). ¶ 18 Concluding that the “reliability” factors in Roberts were “unpredictable and inconsistent,” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , the Supreme Court reasoned that “[w]here testimonial statements are involved, we do not think the Framers meant to leave the Sixth Amendment’s protection to the vagaries of the rules of evidence	1	5
White v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1992 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994We are thus not presented -with a firmly rooted hearsay exception that does not require witness unavailability, as in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 351 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding”). 1994We are thus not presented -with a firmly rooted hearsay exception that does not require witness unavailability, as in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 351 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 741 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (“unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding”).	1	2
Longfellow v. Stategreen del · 1997 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003Longfellow v. State, 688 A.2d 1370, 1373 (Del.1997).	1	1
Jose L. Martinez v. Gary McCaughtrygreen ca7 · 1991 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003See, e.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 417 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (holding testimony that would violate the Confrontation Clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment); Martinez v. McCaughtry, 951 F.2d 130, 133 (7th Cir.1991).	1	1
Tennessee v. Streetgreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See, e.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 417 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (holding testimony that would violate the Confrontation Clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment); Martinez v. McCaughtry, 951 F.2d 130, 133 (7th Cir.1991). 2003See, e.g., Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 417 , 105 S.Ct. 2078 , 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1985) (holding testimony that would violate the Confrontation Clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment); Martinez v. McCaughtry, 951 F.2d 130, 133 (7th Cir.1991).	1	1
State v. Bassgreen ariz · 2000 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003If the statements do not fall into a firmly rooted hearsay exception, “courts insist on particularized ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Bass, 198 Ariz. at 580, ¶ 36 , 12 P.3d at 805 (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)). 2003If the statements do not fall into a firmly rooted hearsay exception, “courts insist on particularized ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Bass, 198 Ariz. at 580, ¶ 36 , 12 P.3d at 805 (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)).	1	1
People v. Leachgreen cal · 1975 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission 75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976). 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission 75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976).	1	1
State v. Darbygreen arizctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 2 sentences 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission 75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976). 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission 75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976).	1	1
Mason v. Automotive Hobby Shopsgreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission *75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976).	1	1
Kramer v. Californiagreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See State v. Darby, 123 Ariz. 368 , 599 P.2d 821 (App. 1979) (portion of accomplice’s admission *75 against penal interest that implicated defendant not admissible against defendant under Ariz.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)), following People v. Leach, 15 Cal.3d 419 , 124 Cal. Rptr. 752 , 541 P.2d 296 (1975), cert. denied 424 U.S. 926 , 96 S.Ct. 1137 , 47 L.Ed.2d 335 (1976).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Maryland v. Craig green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2003“The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990). ¶ 16 Like the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause operates to exclude out-of-court statements from admission at trial unless the statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 2003“The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.” Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990). ¶ 16 Like the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause operates to exclude out-of-court statements from admission at trial unless the statements fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.	2	1994–2003
State v. Robinson green ariz · 1987 2 sentences 1996As appellant correctly notes, if hearsay evidence falls “ “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,’ ” that alone provides “ ‘indicia of reliability’ sufficient to avoid a violation of the confrontation clause.” Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 , quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 67 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980). 1996As appellant correctly notes, if hearsay evidence falls “ “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,’ ” that alone provides “ ‘indicia of reliability’ sufficient to avoid a violation of the confrontation clause.” Robinson, 153 Ariz. at 204 , 735 P.2d at 814 , quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 67 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980).	2	1990–1996
State v. Jeffers green ariz · 1983 2 sentences 1984State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404 , 661 P.2d 1105 (1983). 1984State v. Jeffers, 135 Ariz. 404 , 661 P.2d 1105 (1983).	2	1984–1984
State v. Hickman green ariz · 2003 1 sentence 2008Tucker, 205 Ariz. at 165, ¶ 41, 68 P.3d at 118 . ¶ 61 An otherwise inadmissible hearsay statement may be admitted under Rule 804(b)(5) if the statement has “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness” that make it “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994) (quoting Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990)).	1	2008–2008
Lilly v. Virginia green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2003A. “Firmly Rooted” Hearsay Exceptions If 17 Bronson relies on Lilly, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , to argue that a statement against penal interest made by an accomplice is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. 2003A. “Firmly Rooted” Hearsay Exceptions If 17 Bronson relies on Lilly, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , to argue that a statement against penal interest made by an accomplice is not a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule.	1	2003–2003
Nyenekor v. Boston green scotus · 1995 1 sentence 1996Thus, a statement proffered pursuant to Rule 804(b)(5) must have “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness” that the statement is “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” State v. Luzanilla, 179 Ariz. 391, 394 , 880 P.2d 611, 614 (1994), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 1406 , 131 L.Ed.2d 293 (1995).	1	1996–1996
State v. Bible green ariz · 1993 2 sentences 1994White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 596 , 858 P.2d at 1199 . 1994White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992); Bible, 175 Ariz. at 596 , 858 P.2d at 1199 .	1	1994–1994
State v. Adamson green ariz · 1983 1 sentence 1992Id. at 812 .	1	1992–1992
State v. Martin green ariz · 1984 2 sentences 1985Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); State v. Martin, 139 Ariz. 466 , 679 P.2d 489 (1984). 1985Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); State v. Martin, 139 Ariz. 466 , 679 P.2d 489 (1984).	1	1985–1985
State v. Farber green or · 1983 1 sentence 1984State v. Farber, 666 P.2d at 827 ; United States v. Perez, supra. Several circuits have held, to the contrary, that co-conspirator statements are within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and that no further guarantee of trustworthiness is needed for admission.	1	1984–1984
cluster 393913 green ca9 · 1981 1 sentence 1984State v. Farber, 666 P.2d at 827 ; United States v. Perez, supra. Several circuits have held, to the contrary, that co-conspirator statements are within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and that no further guarantee of trustworthiness is needed for admission.	1	1984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4031 (9) AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 87 (1985–2021) OH 81 (1984–2026) IL 66 (1983–2021) CA 53 (1990–2023) WA 41 (1984–2016) WI 35 (1981–2021) KS 33 (1984–2008) NC 32 (1981–2016) CO 31 (1982–2017) AZ 29 (1983–2008) OR 28 (1982–2024) NM 26 (1985–2015) FL 25 (1984–2019) PA 24 (1986–2023) MN 24 (1984–2016) AL 23 (1989–2004) CT 23 (1988–2026) MS 21 (1986–2016) TN 19 (1997–2017) MD 19 (1984–2021) MI 18 (1989–2026) NY 18 (1980–2023) WV 18 (1987–2026) HI 17 (1989–2015) GA 15 (1991–2003) IN 14 (1992–2007) NJ 14 (1989–2016) LA 14 (1984–2013) VA 13 (1999–2012) ID 12 (1981–2009) OK 12 (1985–2023) SD 12 (1983–2005) MA 12 (1986–2015) DE 11 (1985–2026) AR 11 (1991–2008) SC 11 (1997–2014) NH 9 (1992–2025) DC 9 (1981–2009) UT 9 (1989–2020) MO 8 (1988–2021) NE 6 (1990–2013) MT 5 (1987–2024) IA 4 (1982–2001) WY 4 (2000–2015) NV 4 (1998–2006) AK 4 (1985–2015) RI 3 (1990–2010) KY 3 (1993–2001) VT 3 (1986–2020) ME 3 (1987–2024) VI 2 (2005–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check