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.
17 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Neal v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was 2011See, e.g. , Shorter v. State , 33 So. 3d 512, 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (holding declarant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright , 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn. 2007) (declarant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State , 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Shorter v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was 2011See, e.g. , Shorter v. State , 33 So. 3d 512, 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (holding declarant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright , 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn. 2007) (declarant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State , 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was 2011See, e.g. , Shorter v. State , 33 So. 3d 512, 523 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (holding declarant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright , 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn. 2007) (declarant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State , 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Corellagreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was 2011Sup. Ct. 2004) (911 calls are inadmissible under the confrontation clause); People v. Corella , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 770, 776 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (911 calls are not testimonial because they are initiated by a citizen, not police). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hoytgreen2 sentences2001See Smith v. State, 340 Ark. 116 , 8 S.W.3d 534, 538 (2000) (Brown, J., concurring); State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204, 209 (Utah Ct.App.1991). 2001See Smith v. State, 340 Ark. 116 , 8 S.W.3d 534, 538 (2000) (Brown, J., concurring); State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204, 209 (Utah Ct.App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Smith v. State, 340 Ark. 116 , 8 S.W.3d 534, 538 (2000) (Brown, J., concurring); State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204, 209 (Utah Ct.App.1991). 2001See Smith v. State, 340 Ark. 116 , 8 S.W.3d 534, 538 (2000) (Brown, J., concurring); State v. Hoyt, 806 P.2d 204, 209 (Utah Ct.App.1991). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Flammgreen2 sentences1999State v. Flamm, 351 N.W.2d 108, 109 (N.D.1984). 1999State v. Flamm , 351 N.W.2d 108, 109 (N.D. 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Davis v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2011The State responds that use of the 911 call was not misconduct because the confrontation clause’s availability requirement only requires a witness to appear at trial and Barbara Duncan appeared. [¶ 12] We have explained, “prosecutorial misconduct may ‘so infect!] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ However, we have also recognized that not every assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, followed by an argument the conduct denied the defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial, automatically rises to an error of constitutional dimension. ‘ 2011The State responds that use of the 911 call was not misconduct because the confrontation clause’s availability requirement only requires a witness to appear at trial and Barbara Duncan appeared. [¶ 12] We have explained, “prosecutorial misconduct may ‘so infect!] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ However, we have also recognized that not every assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, followed by an argument the conduct denied the defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial, automatically rises to an error of constitutional dimension. ‘ | 1 | 2 |
Barber v. Pagegreen2 sentences1984Therefore, this case falls directly within the ambit of the Court’s holding in Barber v. Page, supra, 390 U.S. at 724-725 , 88 S.Ct. at 1322 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 260 : “In short, a witness is not ‘unavailable’ for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. 1984Therefore, this case falls directly within the ambit of the Court’s holding in Barber v. Page, supra, 390 U.S. at 724-725 , 88 S.Ct. at 1322 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 260 : “In short, a witness is not ‘unavailable’ for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Abu Aligreen1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cortesgreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was 2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was | 1 | 1 |
State v. Powersgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Entzegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hillinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ericksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gerstein v. Pughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held the confrontation clause prohibits the admission of testimonial hearsay against a defendant, unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant or the defendant is responsible for the unavailability of the witness. [¶29] Chatman argues the district court erred in allowing the State to present testimony from the detective about the informant’s testimonial statements. 2015In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held the confrontation clause prohibits the admission of testimonial hearsay against a defendant, unless the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant or the defendant is responsible for the unavailability of the witness. [¶29] Chatman argues the district court erred in allowing the State to present testimony from the detective about the informant’s testimonial statements. | 5 | 2005–2020 |
State v. Kruckenberg
green
2 sentences2011The State responds that use of the 911 call was not misconduct because the confrontation clause’s availability requirement only requires a witness to appear at trial and Barbara Duncan appeared. [¶ 12] We have explained, “prosecutorial misconduct may ‘so infect!] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ However, we have also recognized that not every assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, followed by an argument the conduct denied the defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial, automatically rises to an error of constitutional dimension. ‘ 2011The State responds that use of the 911 call was not misconduct because the confrontation clause’s availability requirement only requires a witness to appear at trial and Barbara Duncan appeared. [¶ 12] We have explained, “prosecutorial misconduct may ‘so infect!] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ However, we have also recognized that not every assertion of prosecutorial misconduct, followed by an argument the conduct denied the defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial, automatically rises to an error of constitutional dimension. ‘ | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2001State v. Wilson, 1999 ND 34, ¶ 14 , 590 N.W.2d 202 . 2001State v. Wilson, 1999 ND 34, ¶ 14 , 590 N.W.2d 202 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Maryland v. Craig
green
2 sentences2001Thank you. [¶ 23] On appeal, Miller argues this procedure violated his rights under the confrontation clause; the trial court should have held a hearing in accordance with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), before adopting special procedures for the child’s testimony; and the trial court should have given an instruction cautioning the jury not to infer guilt from use of these procedures. [¶24] When a problem arises during a trial, the party affected must bring the irregularity to the trial court’s attention and seek appropriate remedial action. 2001Thank you. [¶ 23] On appeal, Miller argues this procedure violated his rights under the confrontation clause; the trial court should have held a hearing in accordance with Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 , 110 S.Ct. 3157 , 111 L.Ed.2d 666 (1990), before adopting special procedures for the child’s testimony; and the trial court should have given an instruction cautioning the jury not to infer guilt from use of these procedures. [¶24] When a problem arises during a trial, the party affected must bring the irregularity to the trial court’s attention and seek appropriate remedial action. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Gregg v. Gregg
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Donna Marie Sunrhodes
green
1 sentence2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Mohamed Salim, A/K/A Abdul Qazi, A/K/A Mohamed Ali
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Casamento
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Joseph Kelly
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rodger Thornton v. Donald N. Snyder, Jr., Director, James M. Schomig, Warden, and Captain Josh J. Shettleworth
green
1 sentence2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Parkhurst v. Belt
green
1 sentence2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Barrera-Quintero v. Holder, Jr.
green
1 sentence2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Weekly v. Department of Licensing
neutral
2 sentences2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. 2018Barrera-Quintero v. Holder , 699 F.3d 1239 , 1248-49 (10th Cir. 2012) (concluding there was no due process violation in a removal proceeding when an officer testified over the telephone from another state); Parkhurst v. Belt , 567 F.3d 995 , 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2009) (concluding testimony in a civil case via closed circuit television was appropriate and the district court instituted the appropriate safeguards); Thornton v. Snyder , 428 F.3d 690 , 698-99 (7th Cir. 2005) (affirming court's decision to allow a trial by video conference); United States v. Sunrhodes , 831 F.2d 1537 , 1544 (10th Cir. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hertzke v. Reiley
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
St. Joseph Hospital v. Celotex Corp.
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
El v. Zimmerman
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g. , United States v. Abu Ali , 528 F.3d 210 , 241-42 (4th Cir. 2008) (determining depositions taken in Saudi Arabia under a Saudi oath did not violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right); United States v. Kelly , 892 F.2d 255 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 1989) (concluding depositions taken in compliance with United States law in Belgium were properly admitted at trial); United States v. Casamento , 887 F.2d 1141 , 1174-75 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 493 U.S. 1081 , 110 S.Ct. 1138 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1990) (concluding depositions taken in Switzerland were properly admitted, although the witnes | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Powers
green
1 sentence2011See, e.g., Shorter v. State, 33 So.3d 512, 523 (Miss.App.2009) (holding declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call); State v. Wright, 726 N.W.2d 464, 474 (Minn.2007) (declar-ant’s statements to 911 operator were non-testimonial even after declarant was informed defendant was in custody where declarant was repeating details for reassurance that police arrested the correct defendant); Neal v. State, 186 S.W.3d 690, 692 (Tex.App.2006) (statements from 911 call were admissible where declarant made statements while an assault was | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2005VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice, concurring specially. [¶ 15] The majority avoids, for the moment, the encounter of N.D.C.C.1 § 39- 20-07 with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made applicable to the States under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). [¶ 16] I am skeptical of the harmless-error analysis involving the admission of evidence which should not be admitted or the excl 2005VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice, concurring specially. [¶ 15] The majority avoids, for the moment, the encounter of N.D.C.C.1 § 39- 20-07 with the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) and the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made applicable to the States under Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961). [¶ 16] I am skeptical of the harmless-error analysis involving the admission of evidence which should not be admitted or the excl | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Gary N. Fields v. Edward W. Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Douglas v. Alabama green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Manke green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Ohio v. Roberts red | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| United States v. Wade green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| California v. Green red | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.