res gestae exception in Maryland

11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hall v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1969 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1970–2005 2 sentences 2005In fact, it is difficult to imagine anything occurring or being said while crime is in actual progress that would not be admissible under the res gestae principle----Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook, § 701 at 259 (3d ed. 1999) (quoting Hall v. State, 5 Md.App. 599, 607 , 249 A.2d 217 (1969) (followed by Davis v. State, 125 Md.App. 713, 718 , 726 A.2d 872 (1999))). 14 . 2005In fact, it is difficult to imagine anything occurring or being said while crime is in actual progress that would not be admissible under the res gestae principle----Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook, § 701 at 259 (3d ed. 1999) (quoting Hall v. State, 5 Md.App. 599, 607 , 249 A.2d 217 (1969) (followed by Davis v. State, 125 Md.App. 713, 718 , 726 A.2d 872 (1999))). 14 .	1	2
Ohio v. Robertsred scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988These are what Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980), refers to as the “firmly rooted hearsay exception^].” Res Gestae We will deal first with the State’s argument that the out-of-court assertions “were admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.” 4 In approaching that 10 Hydra-headed doctrinal monster, one would do well to arm himself initially with the wisdom of Dean Wigmore: “The phrase ‘res gestae’ has long been not only entirely useless, but even positively harmful. 1988These are what Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597, 608 (1980), refers to as the “firmly rooted hearsay exception^].” Res Gestae We will deal first with the State’s argument that the out-of-court assertions “were admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule.” 4 In approaching that 10 Hydra-headed doctrinal monster, one would do well to arm himself initially with the wisdom of Dean Wigmore: “The phrase ‘res gestae’ has long been not only entirely useless, but even positively harmful.	1	1
Long v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1968 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969 1 sentence 1969See Long v. State, 3 Md.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
Hicks v. State green mdctspecapp · 1968 2 sentences 1971Hicks v. State, 3 Md. 1969Hicks v. State, 3 Md.	2	1969–1971
People v. Taylor green calctapp · 1980 2 sentences 2011In People v. Taylor, 112 Cal.App.3d 348 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1980), the Court of Appeal of California for the Fifth Appellate District considered this argument in the context of the felony of drug distribution. 2011In People v. Taylor, 112 Cal.App.3d 348 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1980), the Court of Appeal of California for the Fifth Appellate District considered this argument in the context of the felony of drug distribution.	1	2011–2011
Davis v. State green mdctspecapp · 1999 2 sentences 2005In fact, it is difficult to imagine anything occurring or being said while crime is in actual progress that would not be admissible under the res gestae principle----Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook, § 701 at 259 (3d ed. 1999) (quoting Hall v. State, 5 Md.App. 599, 607 , 249 A.2d 217 (1969) (followed by Davis v. State, 125 Md.App. 713, 718 , 726 A.2d 872 (1999))). 14 . 2005In fact, it is difficult to imagine anything occurring or being said while crime is in actual progress that would not be admissible under the res gestae principle----Joseph F. Murphy, Jr., Maryland Evidence Handbook, § 701 at 259 (3d ed. 1999) (quoting Hall v. State, 5 Md.App. 599, 607 , 249 A.2d 217 (1969) (followed by Davis v. State, 125 Md.App. 713, 718 , 726 A.2d 872 (1999))). 14 .	1	2005–2005
Neusbaum v. State green md · 1928 2 sentences 1999The Court held that the declarant’s recitation of the license plate number of the vehicle was erroneously admitted into evidence under the doctrine of res gestae. 4 Id. at 163-64 , 143 A. 872 . 1999The Court held that the declarant’s recitation of the license plate number of the vehicle was erroneously admitted into evidence under the doctrine of res gestae. 4 Id. at 163-64 , 143 A. 872 .	1	1999–1999
Cassidy v. State green mdctspecapp · 1988 2 sentences 1997B & K Rentals v. Universal Leaf, 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666 , cert. denied, 312 Md. 602 , 541 A.2d 965 (1988). 1997B & K Rentals v. Universal Leaf, 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666 , cert. denied, 312 Md. 602 , 541 A.2d 965 (1988).	1	1997–1997
B & K Rentals & Sales Co. v. Universal Leaf Tobacco Co. green md · 1991 2 sentences 1997B & K Rentals v. Universal Leaf, 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666 , cert. denied, 312 Md. 602 , 541 A.2d 965 (1988). 1997B & K Rentals v. Universal Leaf, 324 Md. 147 , 596 A.2d 640 (1991); Cassidy v. State, 74 Md.App. 1 , 536 A.2d 666 , cert. denied, 312 Md. 602 , 541 A.2d 965 (1988).	1	1997–1997
Moore v. State green mdctspecapp · 1975 2 sentences 1988The State cites as authority for the existence of a res gestae exception in Maryland our case of Moore v. State, 26 Md.App. 556 , 338 A.2d 344 (1975). 1988The State cites as authority for the existence of a res gestae exception in Maryland our case of Moore v. State, 26 Md.App. 556 , 338 A.2d 344 (1975).	1	1988–1988
Smith v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 1 sentence 1982Smith v. State, 6 Md.	1	1982–1982
Wilson v. State green md · 1942 2 sentences 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md. 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md.	1	1972–1972
McBriety v. Phillips green md · 1942 2 sentences 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md. 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md.	1	1972–1972
Little v. State green md · 1954 2 sentences 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md. 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md.	1	1972–1972
Robinson v. State green md · 1881 1 sentence 1972Rather, it was ‘a narrative of a completed event’, given under circumstances and conditions where there had been ample time and opportunity to reflect upon and report the event. * * ” In Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (12th Ed.), § 282, pages 647-648, it is said: “ * * Statements by the victim of a sexual offense, made upon the victim’s return home following commission of the offense, have been *67 held admissible as res gestae, under varying circumstances.” 7 At least since Robinson v. State, 57 Md. 14 (1881), it has been held by the Court of Appeals, and more recently by this Court, that stat	1	1972–1972
Reckard v. State green mdctspecapp · 1967 1 sentence 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md.	1	1972–1972
Alexander v. State green md · 2001 2 sentences 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md. 1972McBriety v. Phillips, 180 Md. 569 , 26 A. 2d 400 (1942) ; Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1 , 26 A. 2d 770 (1942) ; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 , 84 A. 2d 98 (1951) ; Little v. State, 204 Md. 518 , 105 A. 2d 501 (1954) ; Reckard v. State, 2 Md.	1	1972–1972
People v. Bonneau green mich · 1948 1 sentence 1970Nor have we overlooked the Michigan cases, urged upon us by the State, holding admissible under the res gestae rule statements by children of tender age made three months after the incident, People v. Gage, 28 N. W. 835 ; thirteen days after the incident, People v. Glover, 38 N. W. 874 ; and three days after the incident, People v. Bon *552 neau, 35 N.W.2d 161 .	1	1970–1970
People v. Glover green mich · 1888 1 sentence 1970Nor have we overlooked the Michigan cases, urged upon us by the State, holding admissible under the res gestae rule statements by children of tender age made three months after the incident, People v. Gage, 28 N. W. 835 ; thirteen days after the incident, People v. Glover, 38 N. W. 874 ; and three days after the incident, People v. Bon *552 neau, 35 N.W.2d 161 .	1	1970–1970
People v. Gage green mich · 1886 1 sentence 1970Nor have we overlooked the Michigan cases, urged upon us by the State, holding admissible under the res gestae rule statements by children of tender age made three months after the incident, People v. Gage, 28 N. W. 835 ; thirteen days after the incident, People v. Glover, 38 N. W. 874 ; and three days after the incident, People v. Bon *552 neau, 35 N.W.2d 161 .	1	1970–1970
Austin v. State green mdctspecapp · 1968 1 sentence 1970Hicks v. State, 3 Md.	1	1970–1970

Where else courts name it

PA 231 (1925–2026) LA 177 (1956–2025) GA 107 (1957–2017) TX 78 (1923–2020) WA 68 (1926–2026) MI 51 (1948–2020) IN 49 (1958–2023) MO 47 (1930–2025) CO 40 (1954–2026) AL 34 (1916–2026) OK 28 (1967–2022) SC 25 (1930–2021) IA 24 (1911–1995) VA 23 (1922–2025) IL 21 (1926–2014) AR 20 (1976–2026) FL 14 (1966–2008) MN 13 (1922–2015) NC 12 (1962–2007) CA 12 (1937–1986) KY 12 (1909–1985) OH 12 (1944–2006) MD 11 (1969–2011) WV 11 (1878–2020) MT 11 (1938–2001) NJ 11 (1952–2021) KS 10 (1979–2017) NY 10 (1893–2003) UT 10 (1903–2025) ID 10 (1894–2024) AZ 9 (1923–1975) SD 9 (1968–2017) NM 9 (1939–2010) WI 7 (1968–1989) TN 7 (1939–2014) NV 6 (1980–2026) VT 5 (1935–1987) MS 4 (1934–2005) HI 4 (1982–2008) OR 4 (1957–2024) ME 3 (1923–1972) DC 2 (1945–2004) MA 2 (1955–1983) NH 2 (1977–1981) WY 2 (1941–1992)

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