132 Oklahoma opinions name it 3 courts 1925–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Stategreen2 sentences2017The State responds that the decedent's statements met the hearsay exception of a dying declaration and therefore do not violate the Confrontation Clause. ¶42 In both state and federal criminal prosecutions, an accused has a right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Mitchell v. State, 2005 OK CR 15, ¶ 15, 120 P.3d 1196, 1202 ( citing U.S. Const. amends. 2017The State responds that the decedent's statements met the hearsay exception of a dying declaration and therefore do not violate the Confrontation Clause. ¶42 In both state and federal criminal prosecutions, an accused has a right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." Mitchell v. State, 2005 OK CR 15, ¶ 15, 120 P.3d 1196, 1202 ( citing U.S. Const. amends. | 4 | 6 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2005The clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). 116 The confrontation clause requires that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence against an accused at a criminal trial only when the de-clarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 2005The clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). 116 The confrontation clause requires that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence against an accused at a criminal trial only when the de-clarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. | 3 | 6 |
Chambers v. Mississippigreen2 sentences2011In Chambers, the United States Supreme Court found that a confession to the crime from a third person, made to three close acquaintances on separate occasions shortly after murder, and corroborated by other evidence in the case, where the confessions were unquestionably statements against interest, and where the person was present in the courtroom at defendant's trial for the same murder and was under oath and subject to eross-examination, could not be excluded from evidence by the mechanistic application of the hearsay rule "to defeat the ends of justice" by preventing the defendant from intr 2004Id. at 293 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . [74] As the Chambers Court noted, the Mississippi exception included only statements that were against the declarant's "pecuniary interest." Id. at 299, 93 S.Ct. 1038 . [75] Id. at 302 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . [76] In fact, the Supreme Court noted that the hearsay rule "has long been recognized and respected by virtually every State, [and] is based on experience and grounded in the notion that untrustworthy evidence should not be presented to the triers of fact." Id. at 298 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . [77] The Court wrote: In reaching this judgment, we establish no new principles o | 3 | 5 |
Hadley v. Rossgreen2 sentences2021Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Plant Board were found in McCorkle to be inadmissible. ¶21 Defendant relies on three cases for the proposition that the ODA reports were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to 12 O.S. §2803 Hadley v. Ross , 1944 OK 366 154 P.2d 939 Id at 942-943. 2021Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Plant Board were found in McCorkle to be inadmissible. ¶21 Defendant relies on three cases for the proposition that the ODA reports were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to 12 O.S. §2803 Hadley v. Ross , 1944 OK 366 154 P.2d 939 Id at 942-943. | 2 | 4 |
Cooks v. Stategreen2 sentences2023Martinez v. State , 2016 OK CR 3, ¶ 54 , 371 P.3d 1100, 1114 ; Cooks v. State , 1985 OK CR 48, ¶ 28 , 699 P.2d 653, 659 . 2023Martinez v. State , 2016 OK CR 3, ¶ 54 , 371 P.3d 1100, 1114 ; Cooks v. State , 1985 OK CR 48, ¶ 28 , 699 P.2d 653, 659 . | 2 | 3 |
Beavers v. Stategreen2 sentences2011Beavers v. State, 1985 OK CR 146, ¶ 7 , 709 P.2d 702, 704-05 (finding statements made subsequent to the evening of the incident would not satisfy exception for excited utterances). ¶ 31 The statements here also lacked the spontaneity that justifies the hearsay exception for excited utterances. 2011Beavers v. State, 1985 OK CR 146, ¶ 7 , 709 P.2d 702, 704-05 (finding statements made subsequent to the evening of the incident would not satisfy exception for excited utterances). ¶ 31 The statements here also lacked the spontaneity that justifies the hearsay exception for excited utterances. | 2 | 3 |
Marquez v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See also Marquez v. State, 1995 OK CR 17 , ¶ 15, 890 P.2d 980, 984 (close attention must be paid both to the time of the statement and to the spontaneity of the statement); McCalip v. State, 1989 OK CR 46 , ¶ 8, 778 P.2d 488, 490 (statement not shown to have been made under the stress of excitement of the startling event and was in response to mother's question and not spontaneously volunteered). 182 While we recognize the trial court did not admit Kyree's (last) statement as an excited utterance, the trial court opined that it "would qualify" as such in its decision to admit Kyree's statement 1996The trial court relied on Hooks and West v. State, 798 P.2d 1083 (Okl.Cr.1990), which is also irrelevant since it relies on § 2804(B)(5), the residual exception to the hearsay clause, and has nothing to offer on the issue of self-serving hearsay admissible under any firmly rooted exception. [13] Marquez v. State, 890 P.2d 980, 983 (Okl.Cr. 1995). [14] Marquez, 890 P.2d at 983 (witness statements were made spontaneously upon waking the morning after crime and there was no time for reflection); McCalip v. State, 778 P.2d 488 (Okl. | 2 | 3 |
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuitgreen2 sentences2021Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶¶ 29 & 50 ("A physician using a patient's history is part of a method to determine causation of an injury." *** "[And], a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion should the evidence be allowed to reach the jury.") (citations omitted); 12 O.S. §2703 ("The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. . ."); 12 O.S. §2803(4) ("Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, [or] past or present symptoms" are 2021Gray , 2003 OK 10 , ¶¶ 29 & 50 ("A physician using a patient's history is part of a method to determine causation of an injury." *** "[And], a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion should the evidence be allowed to reach the jury.") (citations omitted); 12 O.S. §2703 ("The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. . ."); 12 O.S. §2803(4) ("Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, [or] past or present symptoms" are | 2 | 2 |
Frederick v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Frederick v. State , 2001 OK CR 34 , ¶ 98, 37 P.3d 908 , 935 ; Davis v. State , 1983 OK CR 57 , ¶ 48, 665 P.2d 1186 , 1198. ¶45 The third and final sentence of the text message ("Isaiah Tryon is the guy who choked nd [sic] nearly killed me Saturday") was also arguably admissible under the state of mind exception. 12 O.S.2011, § 2803(3). 2018See Frederick v. State , 2001 OK CR 34 , ¶ 98, 37 P.3d 908 , 935 ; Davis v. State , 1983 OK CR 57 , ¶ 48, 665 P.2d 1186 , 1198. ¶45 The third and final sentence of the text message ("Isaiah Tryon is the guy who choked nd [sic] nearly killed me Saturday") was also arguably admissible under the state of mind exception. 12 O.S.2011, § 2803(3). | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Moore v. State, 1988 OK CR 176, ¶ 32, 761 P.2d 866, 871. ¶54 Here, the 85 year old victim was found lying on the floor with severe injuries to her face. 2017See also Moore v. State, 1988 OK CR 176, ¶ 32, 761 P.2d 866, 871. ¶54 Here, the 85 year old victim was found lying on the floor with severe injuries to her face. | 2 | 2 |
Kennedy v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Kennedy v. State , 1992 OK CR 67, ¶ 10, 839 P.2d 667, 670. 2017See also Kennedy v. State , 1992 OK CR 67, ¶ 10, 839 P.2d 667, 670. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pughgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g. , State v. Pugh , 225 P.3d 892, 831-32 (Wash. 2009) ("Nontestimonial hearsay, on the other hand, is admissible under the Sixth Amendment subject only to the rules of evidence."). 17 Although some courts have determined these types of certificates are nontestimonial evidence and admissible in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause, the certificates are not admissible in this case under the public records exception to the hearsay doctrine because they were not prepared by a public official and are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine becaus 2014See, e.g. , State v. Pugh , 225 P.3d 892, 831-32 (Wash. 2009) ("Nontestimonial hearsay, on the other hand, is admissible under the Sixth Amendment subject only to the rules of evidence."). 17 Although some courts have determined these types of certificates are nontestimonial evidence and admissible in criminal cases under the Confrontation Clause, the certificates are not admissible in this case under the public records exception to the hearsay doctrine because they were not prepared by a public official and are not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine becaus | 2 | 2 |
| Smallwood v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. JCEgreen | 2 | 2 |
MARTINEZ v. STATEgreen2 sentences2023Martinez v. State , 2016 OK CR 3, ¶ 54 , 371 P.3d 1100, 1114 ; Cooks v. State , 1985 OK CR 48, ¶ 28 , 699 P.2d 653, 659 . 2023Martinez v. State , 2016 OK CR 3, ¶ 54 , 371 P.3d 1100, 1114 ; Cooks v. State , 1985 OK CR 48, ¶ 28 , 699 P.2d 653, 659 . | 1 | 3 |
Duvall v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Duvall v. State, 1991 OK CR 64, ¶ 6 , 825 P.2d 621, 626 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 878 , 113 S.Ct. 224 , 121 L.Ed.2d 161 (1992). 1999Duvall v. State, 1991 OK CR 64, ¶ 6 , 825 P.2d 621, 626 , cert. denied, 506 U.S. 878 , 113 S.Ct. 224 , 121 L.Ed.2d 161 (1992). | 1 | 3 |
McGrew v. Stategreen2 sentences1974Defendant’s brief cites a case stating that an accusatory statement is not admissible in evidence, but this case, McGrew v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 381, 382 , holds, in effect, that an accusatory statement made in. the presence of the accused may be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule, because if the defendant hears the statement, he may object. 1973Defendant candidly admits that “admission of this hearsay is error; see McGrew v. State, Okl.Cr., 293 P.2d 381 , and cases there cited. | 1 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025Brown v. State, 2018 OK CR 3 422 P.3d 155 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984). ¶6 On appeal, counsel for the Appellant limits the argument to whether the statement of the victim/declarant to the witness, a police detective, was admissible under the residual hearsay exception for trustworthy statements at 12 O.S.2021, § 2804.1 . . . a statement not covered by Section 2803, 2804, 2805, or 2806 of this title but possessing equivalent, though not identical, circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the court determines that: 1. 2007In connection with several of these claims, Appellant has filed a motion to supplement the appellate record and request for evidentiary hearing as permitted by Rule 3.11(B), Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, 22 O.S., Ch. 18, App (Supp.2005). ¶ 106 We address these complaints applying the familiar test required by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
THOMPSON v. STATEgreen2 sentences2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3 438 P.3d 373 See also Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2015) (setting out factors which can affect whether a child's statements to non-law enforcement individuals are non-testimonial). 2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). | 1 | 2 |
Woodruff v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Woodruff v. State, 1993 OK CR 7, ¶ 57, 846 P.2d 1124, 1139. 2017Woodruff v. State, 1993 OK CR 7, ¶ 57, 846 P.2d 1124, 1139. | 1 | 2 |
| Hancock v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| McCalip v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Brinlee v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Hathcox v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| Fisher v. Woolerygreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Donald Lee Sollars, United States of America v. Richard Marzullogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCorkle Farms, Inc. v. Thompsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Trudeaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Myers v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rawlings v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tinklergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Riojasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pittman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cragergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Montemayor v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. William Lewis Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Paul Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2004The Confrontation Clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). ¶ 25 Traditionally, for purposes of the confrontation clause, all hearsay statements were admissible if (1) the declarant was unavailable to testify, and (2) the statement bore "adequate indicia of reliability." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). 2004The Confrontation Clause "bars admission of some evidence which would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (citations omitted). ¶ 25 Traditionally, for purposes of the confrontation clause, all hearsay statements were admissible if (1) the declarant was unavailable to testify, and (2) the statement bore "adequate indicia of reliability." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). | 4 | 1988–2013 |
Green v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1991Appellant does not claim that the documents were admissible under the evidence code, but urges us to find error because “the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.” Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 2150, 2151-52 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979). 1991Appellant does not claim that the documents were admissible under the evidence code, but urges us to find error because “the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice.” Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97 , 99 S.Ct. 2150, 2151-52 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979). | 4 | 1988–2011 |
Washington v. State
green
2 sentences2018Testimony showing ill feeling, threats, or similar conduct by one spouse toward another in a marital homicide case is relevant and statements by the deceased expressing fear of a spouse are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule Washington v. State , 1999 OK CR 22 , ¶ 36, 989 P.2d 960 , 973. ¶ 112 Fabion, however, argues that the amount of evidence was cumulative and unduly prejudicial. 2018Testimony showing ill feeling, threats, or similar conduct by one spouse toward another in a marital homicide case is relevant and statements by the deceased expressing fear of a spouse are admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule Washington v. State , 1999 OK CR 22 , ¶ 36, 989 P.2d 960 , 973. ¶ 112 Fabion, however, argues that the amount of evidence was cumulative and unduly prejudicial. | 3 | 2007–2018 |
Dutton v. Evans
green
2 sentences1985The converse is equally true: merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lend to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.' Calif. v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)." 400 U.S. at 80-81 , 91 S.Ct. at 215-216 . 1985The converse is equally true: merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lend to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.' Calif. v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)." 400 U.S. at 80-81 , 91 S.Ct. at 215-216 . | 3 | 1985–2004 |
California v. Green
red
2 sentences1985The converse is equally true: merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lend to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.' Calif. v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)." 400 U.S. at 80-81 , 91 S.Ct. at 215-216 . 1985The converse is equally true: merely because evidence is admitted in violation of a long-established hearsay rule does not lend to the automatic conclusion that confrontation rights have been denied.' Calif. v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 , 90 S.Ct. 1930 , 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)." 400 U.S. at 80-81 , 91 S.Ct. at 215-216 . | 3 | 1985–2000 |
Collins-Dietz-Morris Company v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1965In Collins-Dietz-Morris Co. v. Richardson, Okl., 307 P.2d 159 , we held that where the bodily or normal feelings of a person are to be proved, the usual and natural expressions and exclamations of such person which are the spontaneous manifestations of pain, and naturally flow from the pain being suffered at the time, are competent and originally evidence, which may be testified to by any party in whose presence they were uttered. 1960Collins-Dietz-Morris v. Richardson, Okl., 307 P.2d 159 . | 3 | 1960–1965 |
THOMPSON v. STATE
green
2 sentences2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3 438 P.3d 373 See also Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237, 244-45 (2015) (setting out factors which can affect whether a child's statements to non-law enforcement individuals are non-testimonial). 2023Thompson v. State , 2019 OK CR 3, ¶¶ 10-13 , 438 P.3d 373, 376-77 (discussing factors which can show the primary purpose of witness statements for Confrontation Clause analysis). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Christian v. Gray
green
2 sentences2021Gray , 2003 OK 10, ¶¶ 29 & 50 ("A physician using a patient's history is part of a method to determine causation of an injury." *** "[And], a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion should the evidence be allowed to reach the jury.") (citations omitted); 12 O.S. §2703 ("The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. . ."); 12 O.S. §2803(4) ("Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, [or] past or present symptoms" are 2021Gray , 2003 OK 10 , ¶¶ 29 & 50 ("A physician using a patient's history is part of a method to determine causation of an injury." *** "[And], a plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion should the evidence be allowed to reach the jury.") (citations omitted); 12 O.S. §2703 ("The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. . ."); 12 O.S. §2803(4) ("Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, [or] past or present symptoms" are | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Davis v. State
green
2 sentences2018See Frederick v. State , 2001 OK CR 34 , ¶ 98, 37 P.3d 908 , 935 ; Davis v. State , 1983 OK CR 57 , ¶ 48, 665 P.2d 1186 , 1198. ¶45 The third and final sentence of the text message ("Isaiah Tryon is the guy who choked nd [sic] nearly killed me Saturday") was also arguably admissible under the state of mind exception. 12 O.S.2011, § 2803(3). 2018See Frederick v. State , 2001 OK CR 34 , ¶ 98, 37 P.3d 908 , 935 ; Davis v. State , 1983 OK CR 57 , ¶ 48, 665 P.2d 1186 , 1198. ¶45 The third and final sentence of the text message ("Isaiah Tryon is the guy who choked nd [sic] nearly killed me Saturday") was also arguably admissible under the state of mind exception. 12 O.S.2011, § 2803(3). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
STEWART v. STATE
green
2 sentences2018"This Court will only correct plain error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice." Stewart v. State , 2016 OK CR 9 , ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508 , 514. ¶ 24 Bramlett argues on appeal that Stephanie Spence's testimony that he was Michelle Spence's boyfriend when Michelle was strangled in November of 2013 was inadmissible because it was hearsay which fell under no exception to the hearsay rule. 2018"This Court will only correct plain error if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings or otherwise represents a miscarriage of justice." Stewart v. State , 2016 OK CR 9 , ¶ 25, 372 P.3d 508 , 514. ¶ 24 Bramlett argues on appeal that Stephanie Spence's testimony that he was Michelle Spence's boyfriend when Michelle was strangled in November of 2013 was inadmissible because it was hearsay which fell under no exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences2016Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, ¶¶ 29-31 , 248 P.3d 362, 372-73 . 2016Taylor v. State, 2011 OK CR 8, ¶¶ 29-31 , 248 P.3d 362, 372-73 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Slaughter v. State
green
2 sentences2011Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, ¶ 36 , 950 P.2d 839, 852 . 2011Slaughter v. State, 1997 OK CR 78, ¶ 36 , 950 P.2d 839, 852 . | 2 | 2005–2011 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 2 | 2005–2009 |
| Osburn v. United States green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Saunders v. Riley green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Horn v. Sturm green | 2 | 1978–1998 |
| State v. Maestas green | 2 | 1989–1989 |
| Brewer v. State green | 2 | 1973–1982 |
| Ferriman v. Turner neutral | 2 | 1943–1972 |
| Clyde Mattox v. United States green | 2 | 1937–1959 |
| BROWN v. STATE green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Hampton v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Hogan v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In Re JDH green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| United States v. Perez green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| McCarty v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Al-Mosawi v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| McCarty v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Stouffer v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Fontenot v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Giles v. California green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Livingston v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Simpson v. State green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State Ex Rel. Simpson v. Schwarz green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.