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.
26 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97 (1985). ¶ 41 In order to facilitate effective judicial review of a decision to admit or exclude statements under the residual exception, a trial court must “make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling.” State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58, 65 (2011). 2021See State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97 (1985). ¶ 41 In order to facilitate effective judicial review of a decision to admit or exclude statements under the residual exception, a trial court must “make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling.” State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58, 65 (2011). | 5 | 11 |
State v. Triplettgreen2 sentences2018In State v. Triplett , the Supreme Court adopted a six-part test for admitting statements under the residual exception in Rule 804(b)(5) : (1) has proper notice been given; (2) is the hearsay covered by any of the exceptions listed in Rule 804(b)(1)-(4); (3) is the hearsay statement trustworthy; (4) is the statement material; (5) is the statement more probative on the issue than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (6) will the interests of justice be best served by admission. 316 N.C. 1 , 9, 340 S.E.2d 736 , 741 (1986). 2018In State v. Triplett , the Supreme Court adopted a six-part test for admitting statements under the residual exception in Rule 804(b)(5) : (1) has proper notice been given; (2) is the hearsay covered by any of the exceptions listed in Rule 804(b)(1)-(4); (3) is the hearsay statement trustworthy; (4) is the statement material; (5) is the statement more probative on the issue than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (6) will the interests of justice be best served by admission. 316 N.C. 1 , 9, 340 S.E.2d 736 , 741 (1986). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Sargeantgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97 (1985). ¶ 41 In order to facilitate effective judicial review of a decision to admit or exclude statements under the residual exception, a trial court must “make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling.” State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58, 65 (2011). 2021See State v. Smith, 315 N.C. 76, 97 (1985). ¶ 41 In order to facilitate effective judicial review of a decision to admit or exclude statements under the residual exception, a trial court must “make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to allow a reviewing court to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its ruling.” State v. Sargeant, 365 N.C. 58, 65 (2011). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Nicholsgreen2 sentences2018When determining trustworthiness, the court should consider: "(1) the declarant's personal knowledge of the underlying event; (2) the declarant's motivation to speak the truth; (3) whether the declarant recanted; and (4) the reason, within the meaning of Rule 804(a), for the declarant's unavailability." State v. Nichols , 321 N.C. 616 , 624, 365 S.E.2d 561 , 566 (1988) (citations omitted). 2018When determining trustworthiness, the court should consider: "(1) the declarant's personal knowledge of the underlying event; (2) the declarant's motivation to speak the truth; (3) whether the declarant recanted; and (4) the reason, within the meaning of Rule 804(a), for the declarant's unavailability." State v. Nichols , 321 N.C. 616 , 624, 365 S.E.2d 561 , 566 (1988) (citations omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2011“To be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 179 , 340 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1986) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1978)). 2011“To be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 179 , 340 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1986) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1978)). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Deanesgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 109 S.Ct. 2455 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1989); State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 8-9 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 740-41 (1986); Smith, 315 N.C. at 92 , 337 S.E.2d at 844 . 2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 109 S.Ct. 2455 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1989); State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 8-9 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 740-41 (1986); Smith, 315 N.C. at 92 , 337 S.E.2d at 844 . | 2 | 3 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 104 L. 2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 109 S.Ct. 2455 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1989); State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 8-9 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 740-41 (1986); Smith, 315 N.C. at 92 , 337 S.E.2d at 844 . | 2 | 2 |
Henderson v. Battle Creek Medical Education Corp.green2 sentences2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 104 L. 2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 109 S.Ct. 2455 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1989); State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 8-9 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 740-41 (1986); Smith, 315 N.C. at 92 , 337 S.E.2d at 844 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Milton Edward Baileygreen2 sentences2011“To be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, the hearsay statement must possess ‘guarantees of trustworthiness’ that are equivalent to the other exceptions contained in Rule 804(b).” State v. McLaughlin, 316 N.C. 175, 179 , 340 S.E.2d 102, 104 (1986) (quoting United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 341, 348 (3d Cir. 1978)). 1986United States v. Bailey, 581 F. 2d 341 (3d Cir. 1978). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 1 |
Surber v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See State v. Deanes, 323 N.C. 508, 515 , 374 S.E.2d 249, 254-55 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1101 , 109 S.Ct. 2455 , 104 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1989); State v. Triplett, 316 N.C. 1, 8-9 , 340 S.E.2d 736, 740-41 (1986); Smith, 315 N.C. at 92 , 337 S.E.2d at 844 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James A. \Bubba\" Mathis"green1 sentence1985See, e.g., United States v. Mathis, 559 F. 2d 294 (5th Cir. 1977) (court faced with defendant’s recalcitrant wife who, after making sworn statements and testifying before a grand jury as to defendant’s involvement in the crime, refused to testify against him at trial. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. White
green
2 sentences2022In view of these findings, the MAR court’s determination that McCormick’s testimony was sufficiently trustworthy and admissible under the residual exception was not “manifestly unsupported by reason . . . [or] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” White, 312 N.C. at 777 . 2022In view of these findings, the MAR court’s determination that McCormick’s testimony was sufficiently trustworthy and admissible under the residual exception was not “manifestly unsupported by reason . . . [or] so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” White, 312 N.C. at 777 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Stutts
green
2 sentences2018Thus, we held "that finding a witness unavailable to testify because of an inability to tell truth from fantasy prevents that witness' out-of-court statements from possessing guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible at trial under the residual exception set forth in Rule 804(b)(5)." Id. at 562-63 , 414 S.E.2d at 64 -65 . 2018Thus, we held "that finding a witness unavailable to testify because of an inability to tell truth from fantasy prevents that witness' out-of-court statements from possessing guarantees of trustworthiness to be admissible at trial under the residual exception set forth in Rule 804(b)(5)." Id. at 562-63 , 414 S.E.2d at 64 -65 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Holden
green
2 sentences2018The State cites State v. Holden , 106 N.C. 2018The State cites State v. Holden, 106 N.C. | 2 | 1993–2018 |
In re W.H.
green
1 sentence2023In re W.H., 261 N.C. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Brigman
green
2 sentences2018State v. Brigman , 178 N.C. 2018State v. Brigman, 178 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brissett v. First Mount Vernon Industrial Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2018Loan Ass'n ., 233 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Galbreath v. New York City Board of Education
green
1 sentence2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Click v. Alabama
green
1 sentence2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Peguero-Carela v. United States
green
2 sentences2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 2010In “determining . . . trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination.” Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 151 L. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Salley v. United States
green
1 sentence2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Valentine
green
2 sentences2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Tyler
green
2 sentences2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 2010In "determining ... trustworthiness, the following considerations are at issue: (1) whether the declarant had personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) whether the declarant is motivated to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) whether the declarant is available at trial for meaningful cross-examination." Valentine, 357 N.C. at 518 , 591 S.E.2d at 852 (citing State v. King, 353 N.C. 457, 479 , 546 S.E.2d 575, 592 (2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1147 , 122 S.Ct. 1107 , 151 L.Ed.2d 1002 (2002); State v. Tyler, 346 N.C. 187, 195 , 4 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences1991We note that, although the residual exception is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the deputy sheriff’s discussion with Rader contained “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. at ---, 111 L. 1991We note that, although the residual exception is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the deputy sheriff’s discussion with Rader contained “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. at ---, 111 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Klapprott v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Klaprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 , 93 L.Ed. 266 , 69 S.Ct. 384 (1949). 1984Klaprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 , 93 L.Ed. 266 , 69 S.Ct. 384 (1949). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.