18 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2026For that reason, the Crawford Court abrogated its earlier decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), in which the Court concluded that the Confrontation Clause did not preclude the admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against an accused at trial, so long as the statement bore “adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’” shown either “where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or where there is “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 . 2026For that reason, the Crawford Court abrogated its earlier decision in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), in which the Court concluded that the Confrontation Clause did not preclude the admission of an unavailable witness’s statement against an accused at trial, so long as the statement bore “adequate ‘indicia of reliability,’” shown either “where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception” or where there is “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. James Edward S.green2 sentences2003Reliability can usually be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Syllabus Point 5, State v. James Edward S., 184 W.Va. 408 , 400 S.E.2d 843 (1990). 2003Reliability can usually be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.” Syllabus Point 5, State v. James Edward S., 184 W.Va. 408 , 400 S.E.2d 843 (1990). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Masongreen2 sentences2011As we held in syllabus point six of Mason , For purposes of the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 194 W.Va. at 224, 460 S.E.2d at 39 . 2011As we held in syllabus point six of Mason , For purposes of the Confrontation Clause found in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14 of Article III of the West Virginia Constitution, no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 194 W.Va. at 224, 460 S.E.2d at 39 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2012We further found that even in absence of the limited application endorsed in Roberts and James Edward S . to statements made in prior judicial proceedings, the autopsy report fell within a firmly rooted hearsay exception for public records. 7 Id. at 229-30, 517 S.E.2d at 462-63 . 2012We noted further that the Office of Medical Examiners was required by statute to “[k]eep full, complete, and properly indexed records of all deaths investigated, containing all relevant information concerning the death, and the autopsy report if such be made.” Id. at 230 n. 10, 517 S.E.2d at 463 n. 10 (citing W. | 1 | 3 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1990The United States Supreme Court began its analysis by recognizing that Rule 803(24) is not "a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... [that] satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded long-standing judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements." 497 U.S. at ___ , 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 . 1990The United States Supreme Court began its analysis by recognizing that Rule 803(24) is not “a firmly rooted hearsay exception ... [that] satisfies the constitutional requirement of reliability because of the weight accorded long-standing judicial and legislative experience in assessing the trustworthiness of certain types of out-of-court statements.” 497 U.S. at —, 110 S.Ct. at 3147 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 . | 1 | 2 |
Gannon v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Mich. 2010); see, e.g., Gannon v. State, 704 A.2d 272, 275 (Del. 1998) (quoting White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 355 n.8 (1992)) (“The hearsay 16 2. | 1 | 1 |
White v. Illinoisgreen1 sentence2026Mich. 2010); see, e.g., Gannon v. State, 704 A.2d 272, 275 (Del. 1998) (quoting White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 355 n.8 (1992)) (“The hearsay 16 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kaufmangreen2 sentences2015See syl. pt. 4, Kaufman, 227 W.Va. 537 , 711 S.E.2d 607 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2015See syl. pt. 4, Kaufman, 227 W.Va. 537 , 711 S.E.2d 607 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mechlinggreen2 sentences2011See Mechling, 219 W.Va. at 372 , 633 S.E.2d at 317 . 2011See Mechling, 219 W.Va. at 372 , 633 S.E.2d at 317 . | 1 | 1 |
Bourjaily v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1995As a result of their similarity and because they “stem from the same roots,” 9 both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that for purposes of the Confrontation Clause “no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987), quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980); State v. Walker, 188 W.Va. 661 , 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992). 1995As a result of their similarity and because they “stem from the same roots,” 9 both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that for purposes of the Confrontation Clause “no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987), quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980); State v. Walker, 188 W.Va. 661 , 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Mancusi v. Stubbsgreen2 sentences1990In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ [Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S.] at 66 [ 100 S.Ct. 2531 at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 ] (footnote omitted); see also Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2313 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ] (1972).” — U.S. at-, 110 S.Ct. at 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 652 . 1990In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ [Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S.] at 66 [ 100 S.Ct. 2531 at 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 ] (footnote omitted); see also Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213 [ 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2313 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ] (1972).” — U.S. at-, 110 S.Ct. at 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 652 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2026The Roberts test, the Crawford Court found, “allow[ed] a jury to hear evidence, untested by the adversary process, based on a mere judicial determination of reliability,” and it found that, “[b]y replacing categorical constitutional guarantees with open-ended balancing tests, we do violence to their design.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 62 , 67–68. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Kowalak v. Scutt
green
1 sentence2026“It is well established that the excited utterance exception is a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.” Kowalak v. Scutt, 712 F. Supp. 2d 657 , 686-87 n.2 (E.D. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2011In a dissent to State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569 , 461 S.E.2d 75 (1995) (Workman, J., dissenting), *626 I admonished the majority for failing to determine, as a preliminary matter, whether certain out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness were hearsay before determining whether those statements were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. 2011In a dissent to State v. Phillips, 194 W.Va. 569 , 461 S.E.2d 75 (1995) (Workman, J., dissenting), *626 I admonished the majority for failing to determine, as a preliminary matter, whether certain out-of-court statements by an unavailable witness were hearsay before determining whether those statements were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Edward Charles L.
green
2 sentences2003In syllabus point four of State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), this Court explained: *333 The following [is] ... not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declar-ant is available as a witness: ... (4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. 2003In syllabus point four of State v. Edward Charles L., 183 W.Va. 641 , 398 S.E.2d 123 (1990), this Court explained: *333 The following [is] ... not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declar-ant is available as a witness: ... (4) Statements for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In the Interest of Moss
green
2 sentences1997Pt. 7, Matter of Stephfon W. (“ ‘At a transfer hearing, the court must determine the validity of a confession before allowing it to be used against the accused.’ Syllabus Point 6, In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982).’ Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83 , 331 S.E.2d 813 (1985).”). 1997Pt. 7, Matter of Stephfon W. (“ ‘At a transfer hearing, the court must determine the validity of a confession before allowing it to be used against the accused.’ Syllabus Point 6, In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982).’ Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83 , 331 S.E.2d 813 (1985).”). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Matter of Mark EP
green
2 sentences1997Pt. 7, Matter of Stephfon W. (“ ‘At a transfer hearing, the court must determine the validity of a confession before allowing it to be used against the accused.’ Syllabus Point 6, In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982).’ Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83 , 331 S.E.2d 813 (1985).”). 1997Pt. 7, Matter of Stephfon W. (“ ‘At a transfer hearing, the court must determine the validity of a confession before allowing it to be used against the accused.’ Syllabus Point 6, In the Interest of Moss, 170 W.Va. 543 , 295 S.E.2d 33 (1982).’ Syllabus Point 4, Matter of Mark E.P., 175 W.Va. 83 , 331 S.E.2d 813 (1985).”). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences1995As a result of their similarity and because they “stem from the same roots,” 9 both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that for purposes of the Confrontation Clause “no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987), quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980); State v. Walker, 188 W.Va. 661 , 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992). 1995As a result of their similarity and because they “stem from the same roots,” 9 both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have held that for purposes of the Confrontation Clause “no independent inquiry into reliability is required when the evidence ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception.’ ” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183 , 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782 , 97 L.Ed.2d 144, 157 (1987), quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980); State v. Walker, 188 W.Va. 661 , 425 S.E.2d 616 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.