7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hernandez v. Stategreen2 sentences2010This court concluded the docket and charging information were properly admitted into evidence because "certification of the documents by the court provides substantial indicia of their reliability." Id. 1 Further, the docket and charging information were "items of public record which, *272 pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8), would be admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule at a proceeding where the rules of evidence are applicable." Id. at 560 ; see Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 601, 602 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting "substantial indicia of reliability ... may be inferred where the eviden 2002Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8); cf. Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 601, 602-03 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting that substantial indicia of reliability of hearsay evidence in criminal proceeding “may be inferred where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule”; “Such exceptions to the hearsay rule exist because the manner in which certain out-of-court statements are made virtually guarantee their reliability.”). | 4 | 4 |
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences1994Reliability can be inferred in cases where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, or where there is a showing of "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 652 (1990). 1994Reliability can be inferred in cases where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, or where there is a showing of "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3146 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638, 652 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
Flynn v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Flynn v. State, 702 N.E.2d 741, 745 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Arndt v. Stategreen2 sentences1998Arndt v. State, 642 N.E.2d 224, 228 (Ind.1994), citing Idaho, 497 U.S. at 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 . 1998Arndt v. State, 642 N.E.2d 224, 228 (Ind.1994), citing Idaho, 497 U.S. at 815 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pitman v. State
green
2 sentences2010This court concluded the docket and charging information were properly admitted into evidence because "certification of the documents by the court provides substantial indicia of their reliability." Id. 1 Further, the docket and charging information were "items of public record which, *272 pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8), would be admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule at a proceeding where the rules of evidence are applicable." Id. at 560 ; see Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 601, 602 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting "substantial indicia of reliability ... may be inferred where the eviden 2010This court concluded the docket and charging information were properly admitted into evidence because "certification of the documents by the court provides substantial indicia of their reliability." Id. 1 Further, the docket and charging information were "items of public record which, *272 pursuant to Ind. Evidence Rule 803(8), would be admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule at a proceeding where the rules of evidence are applicable." Id. at 560 ; see Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 601, 602 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting "substantial indicia of reliability ... may be inferred where the eviden | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Steven Keith Hatch v. State of Oklahoma
green
2 sentences1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. 1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McMillan v. United States
green
2 sentences1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. 1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Shabazz v. Unknown Named Heads of Clandestine Secret Bodies of the Lexington
green
2 sentences1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. 1998Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447 (10th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1235 , 116 S.Ct. 1881 , 135 L.Ed.2d 176 ; see also J.C. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.