firmly rooted hearsay exception in Maryland

19 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2021 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Ohio v. Robertsred scotus · 1980 · cited in 14 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1984–2021 2 sentences 2021In Roberts, the Supreme Court held that, even when a hearsay declarant is not present for cross-examination at trial, the declarant’s statement is admissible “if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability’” which may be inferred when the evidence “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or with “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. at 66 . 2021VI. 18 In 1980, the Supreme Court held that, when a declarant is not present for cross- examination at trial, the declarant’s prior out-of-court statement is admissible “if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’” which may be inferred when the evidence “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or with “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980).	5	14
Idaho v. Wrightgreen scotus · 1990 · cited in 7 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1993–2014 2 sentences 2014In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 817 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Supreme Court spoke to a similar effect: Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the 259 weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements. 2014In Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 817 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), the Supreme Court spoke to a similar effect: Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the 259 weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.	3	7
Lee v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1993–2006 2 sentences 1995Judge Ahalt determined, in the alternative, that even if the transcript should not automatically qualify under the aforesaid “firmly rooted exception,” it would nonetheless qualify even as generic hearsay because it bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514, 528 (1986), and was, therefore, “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception,” Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 656 (1990). 1995Judge Ahalt determined, in the alternative, that even if the transcript should not automatically qualify under the aforesaid “firmly rooted exception,” it would nonetheless qualify even as generic hearsay because it bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514, 528 (1986), and was, therefore, “at least as reliable as evidence admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception,” Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3149 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 656 (1990).	3	3
Chapman v. Stategreen md · 1993 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1994–2014 2 sentences 2014On this subject, Head v. State, 171 Md.App. 642, 663 , 912 A.2d 1 (2006), quoted with approval from Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 457 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993): Where the hearsay in question falls within a "firmly rooted” hearsay exception "no independent inquiry into reliability is required ...” "Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfied the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.” (Emphasis supplied). 2014On this subject, Head v. State, 171 Md.App. 642, 663 , 912 A.2d 1 (2006), quoted with approval from Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 457 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993): Where the hearsay in question falls within a "firmly rooted” hearsay exception "no independent inquiry into reliability is required ...” "Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfied the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.” (Emphasis supplied).	2	4
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1993–2014 2 sentences 2014As Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987), states: [N]o independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” ... [A] court need not independently inquire into the reliability of such statements. 2014As Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987), states: [N]o independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence “falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” ... [A] court need not independently inquire into the reliability of such statements.	2	4
Gray v. Stategreen md · 2002 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2006–2014 2 sentences 2014See also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529, 570-71 , 796 A.2d 697 (2002) ("No independent inquiry into reliability is required when evidence 'falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ") (emphasis supplied). 2014See also Gray v. State, 368 Md. 529, 570-71 , 796 A.2d 697 (2002) ("No independent inquiry into reliability is required when evidence 'falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ") (emphasis supplied).	1	2
Michigan v. Bryantgreen scotus · 2011 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1152 , 179 L.Ed.2d 93, 104 (2011). 2013See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1152 , 179 L.Ed.2d 93, 104 (2011).	1	1
Bullcoming v. New Mexicogreen scotus · 2011 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2713 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610, 636 (2011) ("In a pathmarking 2004 decision, Crawford ..., we overruled Ohio v. Roberts ...."). 2011See Bullcoming v. New Mexico, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 131 S.Ct. 2705, 2713 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610, 636 (2011) ("In a pathmarking 2004 decision, Crawford ..., we overruled Ohio v. Roberts ....").	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

Case	Cited	Years
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2016In so doing, the Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which had held that it did not violate the Confrontation Clause to admit hearsay statements from a declarant who was not present for cross-examination, as long as the declarant was unavailable, and the statement either fell “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . 2016In so doing, the Court overruled Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), which had held that it did not violate the Confrontation Clause to admit hearsay statements from a declarant who was not present for cross-examination, as long as the declarant was unavailable, and the statement either fell “within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or bore “particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 66 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 .	4	2013–2021
Head v. State green mdctspecapp · 2006 2 sentences 2014On this subject, Head v. State, 171 Md.App. 642, 663 , 912 A.2d 1 (2006), quoted with approval from Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 457 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993): Where the hearsay in question falls within a "firmly rooted” hearsay exception "no independent inquiry into reliability is required ...” "Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfied the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.” (Emphasis supplied). 2014On this subject, Head v. State, 171 Md.App. 642, 663 , 912 A.2d 1 (2006), quoted with approval from Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 457 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993): Where the hearsay in question falls within a "firmly rooted” hearsay exception "no independent inquiry into reliability is required ...” "Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfied the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded longstanding judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.” (Emphasis supplied).	1	2014–2014
Choi v. State green mdctspecapp · 2000 2 sentences 2003The rationale underlying this firmly rooted hearsay exception “ ‘extends to statements made in seeking medical treatment from others such as nurses[.]’ ” Choi v. State, 134 Md.App. 311, 321 , 759 A.2d 1156 (2000)(quoting McClain). 2003The rationale underlying this firmly rooted hearsay exception “ ‘extends to statements made in seeking medical treatment from others such as nurses[.]’ ” Choi v. State, 134 Md.App. 311, 321 , 759 A.2d 1156 (2000)(quoting McClain).	1	2003–2003
Lilly v. Virginia green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2002Thus, there is no need to decide whether the reliability of such statements is so inherently dependable that they would constitute a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Lilly, 527 U.S. at 130 , 119 S.Ct. at 1897 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 . 2002Thus, there is no need to decide whether the reliability of such statements is so inherently dependable that they would constitute a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Lilly, 527 U.S. at 130 , 119 S.Ct. at 1897 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 .	1	2002–2002
Simmons v. State green md · 1994 2 sentences 1995See Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 456-58 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547, 558-59 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994). 1995See Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 456-58 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993); Simmons v. State, 333 Md. 547, 558-59 , 636 A.2d 463 (1994).	1	1995–1995

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