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.
13 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nicholson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Nicholson, supra, 368 A.2d at 564-65 (concluding that declarant’s response to “what in the world happened,” asked minutes after the declarant was stabbed, was admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception). 2007See, e.g., Nicholson, supra, 368 A.2d at 564-65 (concluding that declarant’s response to “what in the world happened,” asked minutes after the declarant was stabbed, was admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception). | 7 | 7 |
Alston v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996See Alston v. United States, supra, 462 A.2d at 1127 (“when the utterance is made immediately after the disturbing incident ... or a few minutes after the incident,” it fits within the spontaneous utterance exception (citations omitted)). 1994See Alston v. United States, supra, 462 A.2d at 1127 (“when the utterance is made immediately after the disturbing incident ... or a few minutes after the incident,” it fits within the spontaneous utterance exception) (citations omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
White v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1998See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).” Woodfolk, supra, 656 A.2d at 1151 n. 17. 1998See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).” Woodfolk, supra, 656 A.2d at 1151 n. 17. | 2 | 2 |
Moore v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040, 1049 (D.C.2007) (quoting Curty v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). 40 . | 1 | 1 |
Curry v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011Moore v. United States, 927 A.2d 1040, 1049 (D.C.2007) (quoting Curty v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987)). 40 . | 1 | 1 |
Carter v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011See Reyes v. United States, 933 A.2d 785 , 793 n. 10 (D.C.2007) (stating that even if trial court erred in admitting officer's testimony under the spontaneous utterance exception, it was harmless because it was mostly cumulative of other testimony); Carter v. United States, 614 A.2d 542, 545 (D.C.1992) (finding erroneously admitted hearsay used to impeach appellant's testimony harmless because it was only cumulative given impeachment through properly admitted evidence and because other evidence showed appellant's guilt). 39 . | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2011See Reyes v. United States, 933 A.2d 785 , 793 n. 10 (D.C.2007) (stating that even if trial court erred in admitting officer's testimony under the spontaneous utterance exception, it was harmless because it was mostly cumulative of other testimony); Carter v. United States, 614 A.2d 542, 545 (D.C.1992) (finding erroneously admitted hearsay used to impeach appellant's testimony harmless because it was only cumulative given impeachment through properly admitted evidence and because other evidence showed appellant's guilt). 39 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007See Smith v. United States, 666 A.2d 1216, 1222 (D.C.1995) (quoting Nicholson v. United States, 368 A.2d 561, 564 (D.C.1977)). 6 “Whether a statement constitutes a spontaneous utterance depends upon the particular facts of each case, and its admissibility as such is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Id. (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2007See Brown v. United States, 840 A.2d 82, 89 (D.C.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Coates v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See Coates v. United States, 705 A.2d 1100, 1104 (D.C.1998) (setting forth the plain error standard); Malloy v. United States, 797 A.2d 687, 689-90 (D.C.2002) (statement by witness to a crime admitted under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
Malloy v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See Coates v. United States, 705 A.2d 1100, 1104 (D.C.1998) (setting forth the plain error standard); Malloy v. United States, 797 A.2d 687, 689-90 (D.C.2002) (statement by witness to a crime admitted under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wheltongreen2 sentences1998Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 545 (Mass.1998). 1998Commonwealth v. Whelton, 428 Mass. 24 , 696 N.E.2d 540, 545 (Mass.1998). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Woodfolkgreen2 sentences1998See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).” Woodfolk, supra, 656 A.2d at 1151 n. 17. 1998See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992).” Woodfolk, supra, 656 A.2d at 1151 n. 17. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1990See Price v. United States, 545 A.2d 1219, 1226 (D.C.1988), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James v. United States
green
1 sentence1995Id. at 638-1 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Beausoliel v. United States
green
1 sentence1983Fitzgerald v. United States, supra, 412 A.2d at 9 ; Beausoliel v. United States, supra, 71 U.S.App.D.C. at 114, 107 F.2d at 295 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Fitzgerald v. United States
green
1 sentence1983Fitzgerald v. United States, supra, 412 A.2d at 9 ; Beausoliel v. United States, supra, 71 U.S.App.D.C. at 114, 107 F.2d at 295 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.