firmly rooted hearsay exception in Louisiana

14 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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
State v. Robinsongreen la · 2001 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See also State v. Robinson, 00-2284 (La.1/12/01), 776 So.2d 431, 432 (per curiam) (called into doubt on other grounds by Crawford v. Washington) (“Excited utterance” is a firmly rooted hearsay exception). 7 .	1	1
State v. Browngreen la · 1990 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005See, State v. Brown, supra .	1	1
Commonwealth v. Wheltongreen mass · 1998 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000).	1	1
People v. Hendricksongreen mich · 1998 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000).	1	1
Oldman v. Stategreen wyo · 2000 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000).	1	1
White v. Illinoisgreen scotus · 1992 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000). 2001See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 358 , 112 S.Ct. 736, 743 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Confrontation Clause is satisfied if hearsay "has sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule."); see also Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 543-46 (1998); People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 , 586 N.W.2d 906, 908-910 (1998); Oldman v. State, 998 P.2d 957, 960 (Wyo.2000).	1	1
State v. Hendersongreen la · 1978 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 1 sentence 2001Assuming that the state meets the foundational requirements for this firmly rooted hearsay exception, see State v. Henderson, 362 So.2d 1358, 1361 (La.1978), the introduction of a victim's excited utterance does not violate the Confrontation Clause even when it constitutes the only direct evidence that the defendant committed the offense.	1	1
State v. Johnsongreen la · 1983 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2005The trial court allowed the wife's statement into evidence by relying on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , which held that the right to confrontation did not bar the admission of an unavailable witness statement against a criminal defendant, if the statement bore an adequate "indicia of reliability," either through a firmly rooted hearsay exception or other particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. 2005The trial court allowed the wife's statement into evidence by relying on Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 , which held that the right to confrontation did not bar the admission of an unavailable witness statement against a criminal defendant, if the statement bore an adequate "indicia of reliability," either through a firmly rooted hearsay exception or other particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.	5	1984–2005
Idaho v. Wright green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 1996Id. 1996"Admission under a firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfies 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." Id.	3	1995–1996
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2013The Washington Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, unanimously 115concluding that, “although Sylvia’s statement did not fall under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, it bore guarantees of trustworthiness.” Id. 2005The Supreme Court reversed finding the admission of the wife's statement violated the confrontation clause, because the only indicia of reliability to satisfy the constitutional right is confrontation. *457 Crawford, 124 S.Ct. at 1358 .	2	2005–2013
Adams v. City of Auburn, Indiana green scotus · 2003 1 sentence 2013The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari “to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause.” 539 U.S. 914 , 123 S.Ct. 2275 , 156 L.Ed.2d 129 (2003).	1	2013–2013
Transmission Agency of Northern California v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. green scotus · 2003 1 sentence 2013The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari “to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause.” 539 U.S. 914 , 123 S.Ct. 2275 , 156 L.Ed.2d 129 (2003).	1	2013–2013
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2003 1 sentence 2013The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari “to determine whether the State’s use of Sylvia’s statement violated the Confrontation Clause.” 539 U.S. 914 , 123 S.Ct. 2275 , 156 L.Ed.2d 129 (2003).	1	2013–2013
State v. Leonard green lactapp · 2005 1 sentence 2012The Crawford Court held that testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence at a criminal trial only when the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declar-ant. [T]he first issue is whether the statement at issue was “testimonial.” While the Supreme Court specifically declined to define “testimonial,” it recognized that, at a minimum testimonial statements include: “prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial; and police interrogations.” State v. Leonard, 05-42, p. 19 (La.App.5 C	1	2012–2012
Worley v. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit green scotus · 2005 2 sentences 2005Id. at 84 . [9] Thereafter, the Horton court held that Christian's statements did not violate Horton's Confrontation Clause rights under Ohio v. Roberts because Christian was unavailable and because the state of mind exception was a firmly rooted hearsay exception. 2005Id. at 85 .	1	2005–2005
State v. Hodgeson green la · 1974 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
State v. Michelli green la · 1974 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
Succession of Linderman neutral la · 1848 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
United States v. Hoyle Lamont Peacock, Vera Lee Peacock and Harvey Coleman Peacock green ca5 · 1981 1 sentence 1984Second, we can "infer the reliability" of these declarations because they all "fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception." 654 F.2d at 349 .	1	1984–1984
Barber v. Page green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1984In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. * * * * * * The basic litmus of Sixth Amendment unavailability is established: "[A] witness is not `unavailable' for purposes of the ... exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial." Barber v. Page, 390 U.S., at 724-725 , 88 S.Ct., at 1322 . 1984In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. * * * * * * The basic litmus of Sixth Amendment unavailability is established: "[A] witness is not `unavailable' for purposes of the ... exception to the confrontation requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial." Barber v. Page, 390 U.S., at 724-725 , 88 S.Ct., at 1322 .	1	1984–1984
State v. Gutter green la · 1981 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
State v. Carter neutral la · 1975 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
State v. Orlando green lactapp · 1984 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984
State v. Kaufman green la · 1976 1 sentence 1984See also, State v. Johnson, supra; State v. Gutter, supra; State v. Kaufman, 331 So.2d 16 (La.1976); State v. Carter, 326 So.2d 848 (La.1975); State v. Hodgeson, 305 So.2d 421 (La.1975); State v. Michelli, 301 So.2d 577 (La.1974); State v. Hogan, 3 La.Ann. 714 (La.1848); State v. Orlando, supra. Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay RuleThe Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev. 1101 (1977).	1	1984–1984

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:26 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:64 (3)

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

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