firmly rooted exception in Missouri

11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2007 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Wernekegreen moctapp · 1997 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004"Such `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' are required because statements admitted under [section 491.075] are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule." State v. Werneke, 958 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo.App.1997) ( quoting Redman, 916 S.W.2d at 790 ).	1	1
State v. Costagreen moctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See State v. Costa, 11 S.W.3d 670, 679 (Mo.App.1999).	1	1
State v. Deblergreen mo · 1993 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Mo. banc 1993). 1999Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980); State v. Debler, 856 S.W.2d 641, 648 (Mo. banc 1993).	1	1
United States v. Cedric L. Roulettegreen ca8 · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
Rodrigo Garcia v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
Jefferson v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
cluster 510995green ca8 · 1988 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
Lam v. Iowagreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
Fermin v. Commodity Futures Trading Commissiongreen scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1
J. Q. v. D. R. L.green scotus · 1989 · cited in 1 Missouri opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 1 sentence 1997See, e.g., United States v. Roulette, 75 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir.) (“The admission of such ... reports under the business records exception provides such a firmly rooted exception.” (citing United States v. Baker, 855 F.2d 1353, 1359 (8th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1069 , 109 S.Ct. 2072 , 104 L.Ed.2d 636 (1989))), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 147 , 136 L.Ed.2d 93 (1996); Comment, Hearsay, The Confrontation Guarantee and Related Problems, 30 La.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (7)

Case	Cited	Years
Idaho v. Wright green scotus · 1990 2 sentences 2005Relying on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), Berry asserts that “[n]on-testimonial hearsay evidence may be admissible [only] if it falls within a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule or is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Berry says that the hearsay testimony of the four police officers clearly was offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein (ie., that Berry had abused the victim before and was mentally unstable) and did not fall within any exception to the general rule prohibiting admission of hearsay evid 2005Relying on Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 814 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), Berry asserts that “[n]on-testimonial hearsay evidence may be admissible [only] if it falls within a firmly-rooted exception to the hearsay rule or is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Berry says that the hearsay testimony of the four police officers clearly was offered for the truth of the matters asserted therein (ie., that Berry had abused the victim before and was mentally unstable) and did not fall within any exception to the general rule prohibiting admission of hearsay evid	3	1997–2005
Ohio v. Roberts red scotus · 1980 2 sentences 2003As a result, “[t]he admission of a hearsay statement against a criminal defendant violates his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses unless the statement falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or it contains particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Shaw, 14 S.W.3d at 81 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)). 2003As a result, “[t]he admission of a hearsay statement against a criminal defendant violates his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses unless the statement falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or it contains particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Shaw, 14 S.W.3d at 81 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).	2	1999–2003
Lilly v. Virginia green scotus · 1999 2 sentences 2007An accomplice’s statement that “inculpates a criminal defendant [is] not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule as that concept has been defined in our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). 12 The defense first raised the question of the admissibility of the recorded telephone conversation between Robert Hoover and Dennis Irby at the pre-trial hearing on motions in limine. 2007An accomplice’s statement that “inculpates a criminal defendant [is] not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule as that concept has been defined in our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence.” Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 134 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999). 12 The defense first raised the question of the admissibility of the recorded telephone conversation between Robert Hoover and Dennis Irby at the pre-trial hearing on motions in limine.	1	2007–2007
State v. Redman green mo · 1996 2 sentences 2004“Such ‘particularized guarantees of trustworthiness’ are required because statements admitted under [section 491.075] are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule.” State v. Wemeke, 958 5.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo.App.1997) (quoting Redman, 916 S.W.2d at 790 ). 2004"Such `particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' are required because statements admitted under [section 491.075] are not within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay exclusionary rule." State v. Werneke, 958 S.W.2d 314, 318 (Mo.App.1997) ( quoting Redman, 916 S.W.2d at 790 ).	1	2004–2004
State v. Shaw green moctapp · 1999 1 sentence 2003As a result, “[t]he admission of a hearsay statement against a criminal defendant violates his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses unless the statement falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule or it contains particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.” Shaw, 14 S.W.3d at 81 (citing Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)).	1	2003–2003
Pope v. Pope green moctapp · 1954 1 sentence 1979In Pope v. Pope, 267 S.W.2d 340 (Mo.App.1954) the custody of two children was awarded to the mother, and the father was awarded visitation rights and temporary custody of his son for two months each summer.	1	1979–1979
Haskell v. Champion neutral mo · 1860 1 sentence 1898Of this assertion it may be observed that it is the firmly rooted doctrine of this court and has been ever since the ruling made in Haskell v. Champion, 30 Mo. 136 , that it is not permitted to a payee or obligee to make a change in the paper which he holds, and then having made it assert, when caught, that he meant no harm by it and that it is immaterial.	1	1898–1898

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MO § Mo. Rev. Stat. § 491.075 (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 47 (1987–2017) OH 30 (1992–2012) CA 22 (1993–2023) VA 21 (1996–2020) IL 20 (1989–2024) NM 17 (1996–2017) WA 17 (1998–2009) CO 17 (1993–2026) PA 15 (1990–2026) NC 14 (1994–2009) LA 12 (1995–2017) AL 12 (1994–2026) FL 11 (1988–2019) MO 11 (1898–2007) MN 10 (1991–2006) AZ 10 (1990–2003) GA 9 (1995–2011) MD 9 (1988–2016) CT 8 (1992–2010) MA 7 (1994–2025) WY 7 (1997–2022) TN 7 (2002–2010) DE 7 (1998–2017) SC 7 (1995–2006) IN 7 (1994–2010) WI 6 (1982–2002) MI 6 (1991–2020) DC 6 (1996–2009) KY 6 (2001–2006) OK 5 (1996–2014) IA 4 (1994–2005) SD 4 (1986–2000) MT 3 (2001–2006) WV 3 (1999–2003) HI 3 (1992–2018) ME 2 (1995–2003) ID 2 (1999–2001) MS 2 (2000–2004) OR 2 (1993–2000) KS 2 (2001–2005) NE 2 (1993–2000) AK 2 (1994–1994)

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