10 Rhode Island opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2015See Clark, 974 A.2d at 564 (“Likewise, when faced with a request by the state in a criminal case to limit or exclude evidence, it is incumbent upon the trial justice to conduct a voir dire hearing or otherwise carefully review the challenged evidence and cautiously exercise his or her discretion, ever mindful of the potential for prej^ udicial error.”). 2015See Clark, 974 A.2d at 564 (“Likewise, when faced with a request by the state in a criminal case to limit or exclude evidence, it is incumbent upon the trial justice to conduct a voir dire hearing or otherwise carefully review the challenged evidence and cautiously exercise his or her discretion, ever mindful of the potential for prejudicial error.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millikengreen2 sentences2009Cf. State v. Milliken, 756 A.2d 753, 756 (R.I.2000) (“A request by the state to limit or exclude the presentation of defense witnesses in a criminal trial should be received with caution and carefully reviewed by the trial justice, who, although exercising his or her broad discretion to determine its relevance, is faced with the potential for prejudicial error to the defendant.”). 2009Cf. State v. Milliken, 756 A.2d 753, 756 (R.I.2000) ("A request by the state to limit or exclude the presentation of defense witnesses in a criminal trial should be received with caution and carefully reviewed by the trial justice, who, although exercising his or her broad discretion to determine its relevance, is faced with the potential for prejudicial error to the defendant."). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Terrance Kenneth Provostgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., United States v. Provost, 969 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir.1992) (“[rjecantation is particularly common when family members are involved and the [witness] has feelings of guilt or the family members seek to influence the [witness] to change [his] story”). 2000See, e.g., United States v. Provost, 969 F.2d 617, 621 (8th Cir.1992) ("[r]ecantation is particularly common when family members are involved and the [witness] has feelings of guilt or thefamily members seek to influence the [witness] to change [his] story"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morelgreen1 sentence1997And this Court has held in State v. Morel, 676 A.2d 1347, 1356 (R.I.1996), that the determination of the weight of DNA evidence is a question for the jury. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Geraldgreen1 sentence1989Although there may be questions regarding the reliability or accuracy of a child’s account of events, rather than disregard a child’s testimony “the preferable course is to accept a child’s story for what it seems to be worth, as ascertainable upon testifying * * In re Gerald, 471 A.2d 219, 221 (R.I.1984) (quoting 6 Wigmore, Evidence, § 1821 at 405 (Chadboum rev. 1976)). | 1 | 1 |
Mancusi v. Stubbsgreen2 sentences1985The test under Dutton v. Evans, as elucidated in Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213 , 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2313 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301 (1972), is as follows: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declar-ant,’ Dutton v. Evans, * * *.” As previously mentioned, a voir dire hearing was held to determine whether un-trustworthiness or unreliability existed in the circumstances surrounding the preparation of Dr. Zi 1985The test under Dutton v. Evans, as elucidated in Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 213 , 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2313 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293, 301 (1972), is as follows: “The focus of the Court’s concern has been to insure that there ‘are indicia of reliability which have been widely viewed as determinative of whether a statement may be placed before the jury though there is no confrontation of the declar-ant,’ Dutton v. Evans, * * *.” As previously mentioned, a voir dire hearing was held to determine whether un-trustworthiness or unreliability existed in the circumstances surrounding the preparation of Dr. Zi | 1 | 1 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen2 sentences1979In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-02 , 87 S. Ct. 1967, 1972 , 18 L. 1979In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 301-02 , 87 S. Ct. 1967, 1972 , 18 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maloneygreen2 sentences1979The state relies upon our opinion in State v. Maloney, 111 R.I. 133, 144 , 300 A.2d 259, 265 (1973), where we held that all efforts to sup *887 press evidence must be by pretrial motion. 1979The state relies upon our opinion in State v. Maloney, 111 R.I. 133, 144 , 300 A.2d 259, 265 (1973), where we held that all efforts to sup *887 press evidence must be by pretrial motion. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burke
green
2 sentences2003In Burke, 574 A.2d at 1223 , we affirmed the trial court's admission of a decedent's prior statements largely because the court held a voir dire hearing and made specific findings of reliability before the statements were ruled admissible. 2003In Burke, 574 A.2d at 1223 , we affirmed the trial court’s admission of a decedent’s prior statements largely because the court held a voir dire hearing and made specific findings of reliability before the statements were ruled admissible. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Handy v. Geary
green
2 sentences2000Rice’s attorney again objected and requested a voir dire hearing on the issue, as required by our decisions in Handy v. Geary, 105 R.I. 419 , 252 A.2d 435 (1969), and State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379 , 285 A.2d 783 (1972). 2000Rice’s attorney again objected and requested a voir dire hearing on the issue, as required by our decisions in Handy v. Geary, 105 R.I. 419 , 252 A.2d 435 (1969), and State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379 , 285 A.2d 783 (1972). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Amaral
green
2 sentences2000Rice’s attorney again objected and requested a voir dire hearing on the issue, as required by our decisions in Handy v. Geary, 105 R.I. 419 , 252 A.2d 435 (1969), and State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379 , 285 A.2d 783 (1972). 2000Rice’s attorney again objected and requested a voir dire hearing on the issue, as required by our decisions in Handy v. Geary, 105 R.I. 419 , 252 A.2d 435 (1969), and State v. Amaral, 109 R.I. 379 , 285 A.2d 783 (1972). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Babbitt
green
1 sentence1987In support of his determination that no violation had occurred, the trial justice in Babbitt found that neither the prosecutor nor the police had the substance of the sister-in-law’s testimony in their possession when the case was being prepared for trial; the police did not deliberately attempt to keep the information from the defendant or the prosecutor; and the sister-in-law’s testimony could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 457 A.2d at 1051 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
United States v. Albion Cranson
green
1 sentence1979Id. at 125 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.