hearsay rule in Arkansas

132 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1953–2026 16 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 (32)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hill v. Browngreen ark · 1984 · cited in 6 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1987–2026 2 sentences 2026The majority quotes the cautionary language that the residual hearsay exception “was not intended to throw open a wide door for the entry of judicially created exceptions to the hearsay rule” and is instead “to be narrowly construed.” See Hill v. Brown, 283 Ark. 185, 188 , 672 S.W.2d 330, 332 (1984). 2026The majority quotes the cautionary language that the residual hearsay exception “was not intended to throw open a wide door for the entry of judicially created exceptions to the hearsay rule” and is instead “to be narrowly construed.” See Hill v. Brown, 283 Ark. 185, 188 , 672 S.W.2d 330, 332 (1984).	2	6
Hawkins v. Stategreen ark · 2002 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2025 2 sentences 2025See generally Hawkins v. State, 348 Ark. 384 , 72 S.W.3d 493 (2002). 2025See generally Hawkins v. State, 348 Ark. 384 , 72 S.W.3d 493 (2002).	2	4
Idaho v. Wrightgreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1991–2004 2 sentences 1996The United States Supreme Court discussed the Confrontation Clause and exceptions to the Hearsay Rule in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990): In Ohio v. Roberts, we set forth a “general approach” for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. 448 U.S., at 65. 1996The United States Supreme Court discussed the Confrontation Clause and exceptions to the Hearsay Rule in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990): In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), we set forth a "general approach" for determining when incriminating statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule also meet the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. 448 U.S., at 65 , 100 S.Ct. at 2538-39 .	2	4
Bragg v. Stategreen ark · 1997 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025 2 sentences 2025Bragg v. State, 328 Ark. 613, 623 , 946 S.W.2d 654, 660 (1997). 2025Bragg v. State, 328 Ark. 613, 623 , 946 S.W.2d 654, 660 (1997).	2	3
Branscomb v. Stategreen ark · 1989 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022Branscomb v. State, 299 Ark. 482, 489 , 774 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1989). 2022Branscomb v. State, 299 Ark. 482, 489 , 774 S.W.2d 426, 429 (1989).	2	2
Ouachita Mining & Exploration, Inc. v. Wigleygreen ark · 1994 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2009 2 sentences 2009Thus, the presentation of Nelson’s deposition testimony during Dr. Stubblefield’s case-in-chief was a “perfectly permissible practice.” Arthur v. Zearley, 337 Ark. 125, 139 , 992 S.W.2d 67, 75 (1999) (Zearleys entitled to present the deposition testimony of Arthur irrespective of his availability to testify at trial); see also Ouachita Mining & Exploration, Inc. v. Wigley, 318 Ark. 750 , 887 S.W.2d 526 (1994) (Ouachita Mining was entitled to present the deposition of Wigley irrespective of the hearsay rule and irrespective of his availability at trial). 1999See Ouachita Mining & Exp., Inc. v. Wigley, 318 Ark. 750 , 887 S.W.2d 526 (1994) (holding that Ouachita Mining was entitled to use the deposition of the defendant as part of its case irrespective of the hearsay rule and irrespective of whether the defendant was available or unavailable at trial).	2	2
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.green ca8 · 1978 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1980–1983 2 sentences 1983See also Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival, etc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1978); Process Control v. Tullahoma Hot Mix Paving Co., 79 F.R.D. 223 (E.D. 1983See also Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival, etc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir.1978); Process Control v. Tullahoma Hot Mix Paving Co., 79 F.R.D. 223 (E.D.Tenn.1977); and Pino v. Protection Maritime Ins.	2	2
Seely v. Stategreen ark · 2008 · cited in 4 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2023 2 sentences 2023Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141, 145 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008). 2023Seely v. State, 373 Ark. 141, 145 , 282 S.W.3d 778, 782 (2008).	1	4
Peterson v. Stategreen ark · 2002 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2005 2 sentences 2005Peterson, 349 Ark. 195 , 76 S.W.3d 845 ; Killcrease v. State, 310 Ark. 392 , 836 S.W.2d 380 (1992). 2005Peterson, 349 Ark. 195 , 76 S.W.3d 845 ; Killcrease v. State, 310 Ark. 392 , 836 S.W.2d 380 (1992).	1	3
Killcrease v. Stategreen ark · 1992 · cited in 3 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–2005 2 sentences 2005Peterson, 349 Ark. 195 , 76 S.W.3d 845 ; Killcrease v. State, 310 Ark. 392 , 836 S.W.2d 380 (1992). 2005Peterson, 349 Ark. 195 , 76 S.W.3d 845 ; Killcrease v. State, 310 Ark. 392 , 836 S.W.2d 380 (1992).	1	3
Taylor v. Stategreen arkctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2021 2 sentences 2021Taylor v. State, 88 Ark. 2017See Taylor v. State, 88 Ark.	1	2
Elliott v. Stategreen arkctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2021 2 sentences 2021Flores, supra. In other cases, our supreme court has expressly held that “the medical- treatment exception to the hearsay rule permits hearsay identifying the perpetrator in the special case of a child-abuse victim where the abuser is a member of the child’s immediate household and the statement is made in the course of a medical examination for the purpose of diagnosis and treatment.” Elliott v. State, 2010 Ark. 2021App. 809, at 6 , 379 S.W.3d 101, 105 (citing Hawkins v. State, 348 Ark. 384 , 72 S.W.3d 493 (2002)) (emphasis added).	1	2
McClellan v. Stategreen arkctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2017 2 sentences 2017Terry v. State, 309 Ark. 64, 69 , 826 S.W.2d 817, 820 (1992); see also McClellan v. State, 81 Ark. 2010McClellan v. State, 81 Ark.	1	2
Carton v. Missouri Pacific Railroadgreen ark · 1990 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–2002 2 sentences 1997In Carton, 303 Ark. 568 , 798 S.W.2d 674 , this court held that a portion of the plaintiff s statement to a doctor concerning the cause of her injury should have been excluded as it did not fall within the hearsay exception in Rule 803(4). 1997In Carton, 303 Ark. 568 , 798 S.W.2d 674 , this court held that a portion of the plaintiff s statement to a doctor concerning the cause of her injury should have been excluded as it did not fall within the hearsay exception in Rule 803(4).	1	2
Smith v. Stategreen ark · 1990 · cited in 2 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1991–1992 2 sentences 1992See White v. Illinois, supra. Also see Smith v. State, 303 Ark. 524 , 798 S.W.2d 94 (1990), for the time period for an excited utterance by a child. 1992See White v. Illinois, supra. Also see Smith v. State, 303 Ark. 524 , 798 S.W.2d 94 (1990), for the time period for an excited utterance by a child.	1	2
Goins v. Stategreen arkctapp · 2019 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025See, e.g., Goins v. State, 2019 Ark.	1	1
Tracy v. Denniegreen ark · 2012 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020	1	1
Johnson v. Stategreen ark · 1996 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019	1	1
Dirickson v. Stategreen arkctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
Terry v. Stategreen ark · 1992 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017	1	1
Ashley v. Ashleygreen arkctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Weber v. Stategreen ark · 1996 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Dougan v. Stategreen ark · 1997 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015	1	1
Greenwood v. Wilsongreen ark · 1979 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1
Arthur v. Zearleygreen ark · 1999 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009	1	1
Hodge v. Stategreen ark · 1998 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006	1	1
Piercy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green ark · 1993 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
Ward v. Stategreen ark · 1989 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
cluster 746487green ca8 · 1997 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002	1	1
Edwards v. Stillsgreen ark · 1998 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Luedemann v. Wadegreen ark · 1996 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1
Dixon v. Stategreen ark · 1977 · cited in 1 Arkansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (48)

Case	Cited	Years
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2015Rule 804(b)(7)’s requirement that a child’s hearsay statement “possess[ ] sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness” to be admissible as a hearsay exception when the declarant was unavailable was in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), until the 2004 case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). 2015Rule 804(b)(7)’s requirement that a child’s hearsay statement “possess[ ] sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness” to be admissible as a hearsay exception when the declarant was unavailable was in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), until the 2004 case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).	6	1987–2015
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2020The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , 400–01 (1965), provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Rayborn cites Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006), for the proposition that Dantzler’s out-of-court accusation that he “killed my baby” was a testimonial statement and should 8 Arkansas Rule of Evidence 803(2) provides that an excited utterance, w 2015Rule 804(b)(7)’s requirement that a child’s hearsay statement “possess[ ] sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness” to be admissible as a hearsay exception when the declarant was unavailable was in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), until the 2004 case of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).	4	2015–2020
Caswell v. State green arkctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2024Caswell v. State, 63 Ark. 2021Caswell v. State, 63 Ark.	3	2016–2024
Jones v. State green arkctapp · 1990 2 sentences 2015Jones v. State, 31 Ark. 2014Jones v. State, 31 Ark.App. 23 , 786 S.W.2d 851 (1990).	3	1998–2015
Wildwood Contractors v. Thompson-Holloway Real Estate Agency green arkctapp · 1986 2 sentences 2009Wildwood Contractors v. Thompson-Holloway Real Estate Agency, 17 Ark.App. 169 , 705 S.W.2d 897 (1986). 2009Wildwood Contractors v. Thompson-Holloway Real Estate Agency, 17 Ark.App. 169 , 705 S.W.2d 897 (1986).	3	2000–2009
United States v. John Louis Iron Shell, Jr. green ca8 · 1980 2 sentences 1994Borrowing from United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980), we stated the factors to consider in determining whether a statement is an excited utterance include (1) the age of the declarant, (2) the physical and mental condition of the declarant, (3) the characteristics of the event, and (4) the subject matter of the statement, and we noted that the lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement, although relevant, is not dispositive of the application of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule. 1992Borrowing from United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir. 1980), we stated the factors to consider in determining whether a statement is an excited utterance include (1) the age of the declarant, (2) the physical and mental condition of the declarant, (3) the characteristics of the event, and (4) the subject matter of the statement, and we noted that the lapse of time between the startling event and the out-of-court statement, although relevant, is not dispositive of the application of the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.	3	1992–2001
Cates v. State green arkctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1989Cates v. State, 267 Ark. 726 , 589 S.W.2d 598 (1979). 1989Cates v. State, 267 Ark. 726 , 589 S.W.2d 598 (1979).	3	1986–1989
Redman v. State green ark · 1979 2 sentences 1986Stat. Ann. § 28-1001 (Repl. 1979), Uniform Rules of Evidence 1002; Redman v. State, 265 Ark. 774 , 580 S.W.2d 945 (1979), nor does it violate the hearsay rule for a witness to testify about a physical object not presented in court. 1986Stat. Ann. § 28-1001 (Repl. 1979), Uniform Rules of Evidence 1002; Redman v. State, 265 Ark. 774 , 580 S.W.2d 945 (1979), nor does it violate the hearsay rule for a witness to testify about a physical object not presented in court.	2	1986–2004
Nard v. State green ark · 1991 2 sentences 1996Nard v. State, 304 Ark. 159 , 801 S.W.2d 634 (1990). 1996Nard v. State, 304 Ark. 159 , 801 S.W.2d 634 (1990).	2	1992–1996
United States v. Harvey M. Renville green ca8 · 1985 2 sentences 1989As stated in United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985), the crucial question under the rule is whether the out-of-court statement of the declarant was “reasonably pertinent” to diagnosis or treatment. 1986In United States v. Renville, 779 F.2d 430 (8th Cir. 1985), the defendant also argued that the hearsay exception embodied in Fed.	2	1986–1989
Krulewitch v. United States green scotus · 1949 2 sentences 1985App. 228 , 640 S.W.2d 805 (1982) and Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949) which hold that statements by co-conspirators made after the conspiracy has ended are not admissible because the hearsay exception applies only to acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and “does not extend to concerted efforts to conceal the crime.” This reliance is misplaced. 1982That argument was clearly rejected in Krulewitch v. U.S., 336 U.S. 440 (1949), which held that a statement made by a co-conspirator after the central aim of the conspiracy is made is not admissible and that the exception to the hearsay rule does not extend to concerted action to conceal the crime.	2	1982–1985
Smith v. State green arkctapp · 1982 2 sentences 1985App. 228 , 640 S.W.2d 805 (1982) and Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440 (1949) which hold that statements by co-conspirators made after the conspiracy has ended are not admissible because the hearsay exception applies only to acts in furtherance of the conspiracy and “does not extend to concerted efforts to conceal the crime.” This reliance is misplaced. 1983App. 228 , 640 S. W.2d 805 (1982), where we said it held that this exception to the hearsay rule does not “extend to concerted action to conceal the crime.” In United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068 (9th Cir. 1975), a "casual admission of culpability” was found in no way to have furthered the conspiracy.	2	1983–1985
Process Control Corp. v. Tullahoma Hot Mix Paving Co. green tned · 1977 2 sentences 1983See also Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival, etc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir. 1978); Process Control v. Tullahoma Hot Mix Paving Co., 79 F.R.D. 223 (E.D. 1983See also Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival, etc., 588 F.2d 626 (8th Cir.1978); Process Control v. Tullahoma Hot Mix Paving Co., 79 F.R.D. 223 (E.D.Tenn.1977); and Pino v. Protection Maritime Ins.	2	1980–1983
Grant v. State green ark · 2004	1	2025–2025
Sir Jeffery McNeil-lewis v. State of Arkansas green ark · 2023 2 sentences 2025McNeil-Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 54 , 661 S.W.3d 195 . 2025McNeil-Lewis v. State, 2023 Ark. 54 , 661 S.W.3d 195 .	1	2025–2025
United States v. Jeffrey Thomas green ca8 · 2006	1	2025–2025
Cook v. State green ark · 2002	1	2024–2024
Davis v. State neutral arkctapp · 2018	1	2021–2021
Davis v. Washington green scotus · 2006	1	2020–2020
Pointer v. Texas green scotus · 1965	1	2020–2020
Embry v. State green ark · 1990	1	2019–2019
Eichelberger v. State green ark · 1996	1	2019–2019
Hensley v. State neutral arkctapp · 2018	1	2019–2019
Hicks v. State green ark · 2017	1	2017–2017
Howard v. State neutral arkctapp · 2016	1	2016–2016
United States v. Robert Joseph Satterfield green ca9 · 1978	1	2016–2016
Heath v. State neutral arkctapp · 2016	1	2016–2016
Friar v. State green ark · 2016	1	2016–2016
Edison v. State neutral ark · 2015	1	2015–2015
Cox v. State green ark · 2001	1	2013–2013
Wyles v. State green ark · 2004	1	2011–2011
Chambers v. Mississippi green scotus · 1973	1	2011–2011
Green v. Georgia green scotus · 1979	1	2011–2011
Rodriguez v. State green ark · 2008	1	2010–2010
Hinzman v. State green arkctapp · 1996	1	2008–2008
Johnson v. State green ark · 1989	1	2008–2008
Byrum v. State green ark · 1994	1	2007–2007
Callaway v. State green ark · 2007	1	2007–2007
Burkett v. State green arkctapp · 1992	1	2005–2005
Dednam v. State green ark · 2005	1	2005–2005

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101 (12) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 (8) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102 (8) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103 (8) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202 (7) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-403 (7) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-313 (5) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125 (5) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-111 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 16-91-113 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-402 (4) AR § Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103 (4)

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

CA 2186 (1918–2026) NY 1697 (1905–2026) TX 1684 (1919–2026) IL 1581 (1922–2026) PA 1093 (1924–2026) OH 1027 (1925–2026) GA 665 (1916–2026) CT 631 (1925–2026) FL 612 (1936–2026) MO 548 (1915–2025) MI 523 (1919–2026) LA 516 (1938–2026) IN 507 (1917–2026) MA 462 (1936–2026) VA 448 (1919–2026) NJ 446 (1934–2026) TN 416 (1918–2026) WA 407 (1928–2026) MD 326 (1927–2026) NC 314 (1912–2026) DC 277 (1945–2026) AL 276 (1908–2026) MS 251 (1913–2026) IA 242 (1915–2025) OR 234 (1929–2026) KY 211 (1904–2026) NM 201 (1914–2026) AZ 187 (1955–2026) WI 181 (1939–2025) KS 177 (1922–2026) CO 174 (1926–2026) MN 167 (1913–2026) ID 138 (1916–2026) UT 132 (1924–2026) AR 132 (1953–2026) OK 132 (1925–2026) SC 124 (1929–2026) ME 121 (1916–2026) NE 116 (1941–2026) HI 114 (1927–2026) RI 110 (1961–2026) AK 103 (1964–2025) MT 102 (1929–2025) WV 101 (1913–2026) ND 77 (1905–2024) NV 77 (1969–2025) SD 76 (1909–2026) NH 76 (1905–2019) WY 70 (1965–2025) DE 61 (1925–2026) VT 48 (1921–2026) VI 12 (1977–2015) GU 5 (2022–2025) PR 2 (1962–2004)

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