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.
15 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zuliani v. Stategreen2 sentences2005The basis for the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule is “a psychological one, namely, ... that when [one] is in the instant grip of violent emotion, excitement or pain, he ordinarily loses the capacity for reflection necessary to the fabrication of a falsehood and the ‘truth will come out.’ ” Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (quoting Evans v. State, 480 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1972)). 2005The basis for the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule is A a psychological one, namely, . . . that when [one] is in the instant grip of violent emotion, excitement or pain, he ordinarily loses the capacity for reflection necessary to the fabrication of a falsehood and the > truth will come out. = @ Zuliani v. State , 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex. Crim. | 10 | 11 |
Kubin v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App.2003); Kubin v. State, 868 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref'd). 2004See Kubin v. State , 868 S.W.2d 394, 396 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d). | 4 | 4 |
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2005The basis for the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule is "a psychological one, namely,... that when [one] is in the instant grip of violent emotion, excitement or pain, he ordinarily loses the capacity for reflection necessary to the fabrication of a falsehood and the `truth will come out.'" Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (quoting Evans v. State, 480 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1972)). 2005The basis for the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule is “a psychological one, namely, ... that when [one] is in the instant grip of violent emotion, excitement or pain, he ordinarily loses the capacity for reflection necessary to the fabrication of a falsehood and the ‘truth will come out.’ ” Zuliani v. State, 97 S.W.3d 589, 595 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003) (quoting Evans v. State, 480 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Tex.Crim.App.1972)). | 4 | 4 |
Rajski v. Stategreen2 sentences2003See id. 2003See id. | 2 | 2 |
Apolinar v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407, 416 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff’d, 155 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence is admissible as an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule.”). 5 Article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates an exception to the hearsay rule in cases involving allegations of sexual assault against a child younger than 14 years of age. | 1 | 1 |
Apolinar v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Apolinar v. State, 106 S.W.3d 407, 416 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2003), aff’d, 155 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether evidence is admissible as an exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule.”). 5 Article 38.072 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates an exception to the hearsay rule in cases involving allegations of sexual assault against a child younger than 14 years of age. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.