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.
23 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuliani v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) ("The admissibility of an out-of-court statement under the exceptions to the general hearsay rule is within the trial court's discretion.") An excited utterance is a "statement relating to startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition." Tex.R. 2008See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003) (“The admissibility of an out-of-court statement under the exceptions to the general hearsay rule is within the trial court’s discretion.”) An excited utterance is a “statement relating to startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” Tex.R. | 8 | 8 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Templeton v. State, 629 S.W.3d 616 , 625 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, no pet.) (citing Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. 2021Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2014EVID. 802. 23 Smith v. State, 88 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S 149, 155 (1970)). –5– conditions—oath, personal appearance at trial, and cross-examination—and therefore lack the conventional indicia of reliability.24 But the rules of evidence include a number of exceptions to the general hearsay rule, which allow the admission of specific categories of hearsay.25 The rationale for allowing exceptions is that certain types of out-of-court statements have been shown to be generally reliable and trustworthy.26 Hearsay included within hearsa 2014EVID. 802. 23 Smith v. State, 88 S.W.3d 652, 658 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, pet. ref’d) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S 149, 155 (1970)). –5– conditions—oath, personal appearance at trial, and cross-examination—and therefore lack the conventional indicia of reliability.24 But the rules of evidence include a number of exceptions to the general hearsay rule, which allow the admission of specific categories of hearsay.25 The rationale for allowing exceptions is that certain types of out-of-court statements have been shown to be generally reliable and trustworthy.26 Hearsay included within hearsa | 2 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2024Article 38.072 is a “carefully limited” exception to the general hearsay rule with “stringent procedural requirements.” See Martinez, 178 S.W.3d at 811 ; Bays, 396 S.W.3d at 591 . 2015Martinez v. State, 178 S.W.3d 806, 815 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2 |
Pena, Jose Luisgreen1 sentence2025Pena v. State, 353 S.W.3d 797, 814 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Coit v. Stategreen1 sentence2025And “[w]here the statute is clear and unambiguous[,] the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has expressed, and it is not for the courts to add [to] or subtract from such a statute.” Coit v. State, 808 S.W.2d 473, 475 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
McCarty v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2021Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); McCarty v. State, 257 S.W.3d 238, 239 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Martin v. State, 173 S.W.3d 463, 467 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Burch, Benjamin Knightengreen1 sentence2019Evid. 803(2) (excepting “excited utterances” from the general hearsay rule); Burch v. State, 401 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Langham v. Stategreen1 sentence2019App. 2013) (explaining that the confrontation clause only precludes testimonial out-of-court statements by unavailable declarants made for the primary purpose of a criminal investigation); Langham v. State, 305 S.W.3d 568, 576 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Granados v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply to suppression hearings, with exception of rules governing privileges); Ex parte Prelow, 929 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply to bond-reduction hearing and, therefore, hearsay was admissible). | 1 | 1 |
Ex Parte Prelowgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Granados v. State, 85 S.W.3d 217, 227 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply to suppression hearings, with exception of rules governing privileges); Ex parte Prelow, 929 S.W.2d 54, 56 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no writ) (Texas Rules of Evidence do not apply to bond-reduction hearing and, therefore, hearsay was admissible). | 1 | 1 |
Lawton v. Statered1 sentence2003See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 826 , 117 S.Ct. 88 , 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 826 , 117 S.Ct. 88 , 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Lawton v. Texasgreen2 sentences2003See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 826 , 117 S.Ct. 88 , 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). 2003See Lawton v. State, 913 S.W.2d 542, 553 (Tex.Crim.App.1995), ce rt. denied, 519 U.S. 826 , 117 S.Ct. 88 , 136 L.Ed.2d 44 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Gonzales v. American General Leasing & Financing Corp.green1 sentence1987TEX.R.EVID. 803(6); Gonzales v. American General Leasing & Financing Corporation, 555 S.W.2d 197, 198 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1977, no writ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bays, Michael Jay
green
2 sentences2025Yet, the State insists that, because Detective Ricketts surreptitiously watched the interview in real time, “Lacy made her outcry ‘to’ Detective Ricketts . . . [regardless of] whether she knew it or not.” But the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has emphasized that Article 38.072 is a “carefully limited” exception to the general hearsay rule with “stringent procedural requirements.” See id.; Bays, 396 S.W.3d at 591 . 2024Article 38.072 is a “carefully limited” exception to the general hearsay rule with “stringent procedural requirements.” See Martinez, 178 S.W.3d at 811 ; Bays, 396 S.W.3d at 591 . | 2 | 2024–2025 |
Michael Bryan Templeton v. State
green
1 sentence2023Templeton v. State, 629 S.W.3d 616 , 625 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, no pet.) (citing Taylor v. State, 268 S.W.3d 571, 579 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Leday v. State
green
1 sentence2005Rule 803(4) excepts from the general hearsay rule statements “made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1975Nor does the Sixth Amendment prohibit a state from changing, modifying, or enlarging the general hearsay rule, California v. Green, supra, so long as there is a reasonable necessity for such change, and so long as the change ‘is supported by an adequate basis for assurance that the evidence has those qualities of reliability and trustworthiness to other evidence admissible under long established exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ Kay v. United States, supra, 255 F.2d 480 , Schepps v. State, supra.” In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), it is written by the 1975Nor does the Sixth Amendment prohibit a state from changing, modifying, or enlarging the general hearsay rule, California v. Green, supra, so long as there is a reasonable necessity for such change, and so long as the change ‘is supported by an adequate basis for assurance that the evidence has those qualities of reliability and trustworthiness to other evidence admissible under long established exceptions to the hearsay rule.’ Kay v. United States, supra, 255 F.2d 480 , Schepps v. State, supra.” In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), it is written by the | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Thomasson v. Davis
green
1 sentence1958Rather unfortunately, however, the practice has arisen of objecting to the evidence as a “self-serving declaration.”' We believe the above textual statements are supported by the following authority: Thomasson v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 557 ; Boone v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W. 685 ; Commercial Standard Ins. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Boone v. Moore
green
1 sentence1958Rather unfortunately, however, the practice has arisen of objecting to the evidence as a “self-serving declaration.”' We believe the above textual statements are supported by the following authority: Thomasson v. Davis, Tex.Civ.App., 74 S.W.2d 557 ; Boone v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 246 S.W. 685 ; Commercial Standard Ins. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.