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.
9 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coulter v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Even though the formal requirements may be shown, they are not to be admitted automatically; the indispensable fundamental trustworthiness of the proffered record must be evident.” Id. at 884 . “[E]vidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule is not admissible if it does not have the ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” McCrary v. State, 604 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). 1989That duty was stated by the Court of Criminal Appeals in Coulter v. State, 494 S.W.2d 876, 882 (Tex.Crim.App.1973): [I]n some circumstances, evidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the Hearsay Rule is not admissible if it does not have the indicia of reliability sufficient to insure the integrity of the fact finding process commensurate with the constitutional right of confrontation and cross-examination. | 3 | 5 |
McCrary v. Stategreen1 sentence1990Even though the formal requirements may be shown, they are not to be admitted automatically; the indispensable fundamental trustworthiness of the proffered record must be evident.” Id. at 884 . “[E]vidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule is not admissible if it does not have the ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” McCrary v. State, 604 S.W.2d 113, 115 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barber v. Page
red
2 sentences1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). 1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). | 4 | 1973–1984 |
Paul E. McDaniel v. United States
green
2 sentences1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). 1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). | 4 | 1973–1984 |
Clarence Phillips v. William S. Neil, Warden, Tennessee State Penitentiary
green
2 sentences1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). 1984Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir.1971). | 4 | 1973–1984 |
United States v. Robert Edward Lipscomb
green
2 sentences1980Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)]; Barker v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, [ 393 U.S. 314 , 89 S.Ct. 540 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)]; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Limpscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971).” In Porter v. State, supra, we again recognized that evidence within the scope of the Business Records Act, Article 3737e, V.A. 1979Chambers v. Mississippi, supra; Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, supra; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir.1965); United States v. Lipscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971). | 3 | 1973–1980 |
Berger v. California
green
2 sentences1980Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)]; Barker v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, [ 393 U.S. 314 , 89 S.Ct. 540 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)]; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Limpscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971).” In Porter v. State, supra, we again recognized that evidence within the scope of the Business Records Act, Article 3737e, V.A. 1980Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)]; Barker v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, [ 393 U.S. 314 , 89 S.Ct. 540 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)]; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Limpscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971).” In Porter v. State, supra, we again recognized that evidence within the scope of the Business Records Act, Article 3737e, V.A. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences1980Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)]; Barker v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, [ 393 U.S. 314 , 89 S.Ct. 540 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)]; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Limpscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971).” In Porter v. State, supra, we again recognized that evidence within the scope of the Business Records Act, Article 3737e, V.A. 1980Chambers v. Mississippi, [ 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973)]; Barker v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 (1968); Berger v. California, [ 393 U.S. 314 , 89 S.Ct. 540 , 21 L.Ed.2d 508 (1969)]; McDaniel v. United States, 343 F.2d 785 (5th Cir. 1965); United States v. Limpscomb, 435 F.2d 795 (5th Cir. 1970); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337 (6th Cir. 1971).” In Porter v. State, supra, we again recognized that evidence within the scope of the Business Records Act, Article 3737e, V.A. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Porter v. State
green
1 sentence1980In Porter v. State, 578 S.W.2d 742 (Tex.Cr.App.1979), we reiterated that in some circumstances, evidence within the ambit of a recognized exception to the hearsay rule is not admissible “if it does not have the indicia of reliability sufficient to insure the integrity of the fact finding process commensurate with the constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.