reliability requirement in Washington

2016In determining the reliability of child hearsay statements, the trial court considers the reliability factors stated in Ryan, 103 Wn.2d at 175-76 . 9 No. 46733-0-II reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” This exception applies to statements reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

2012In State v. Shafer, 156 Wn.2d 381, 391 , 128 P.3d 87 (2006), this court held that a child’s spontaneous statements to her mother were not testimonial and that the child’s statements were admissible “if there is compliance with RCW 9A.44.120 and the [State v.] Ryan reliability factors.” Thus, we need only consider whether [the victim’s] statements were admissible under RCW 9A.44.120 and the reliability factors laid out in State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984).

2016He argues that the reliability test articulated in State v. Smith, 97 Wn.2d 856, 863 , 651 P.2d 207 (1982), is invalid after the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L.

2016He argues that the reliability test articulated in State v. Smith, 97 Wn.2d 856, 863 , 651 P.2d 207 (1982), is invalid after the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L.

2006The Crawford Court rejected the reliability test for testimonial statements derived from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

2006The Crawford Court rejected the reliability test for testimonial statements derived from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

2018This test is distinct from the two-part reliability inquiry derived from Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S. Ct. 1509 , 12 L.

2018This test is distinct from the two-part reliability inquiry derived from Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S. Ct. 1509 , 12 L.

2014Contrary to Wenger's assertions, the legal standard for determining reasonable suspicion based on an informant's tip is the "totality of the circumstances" test, not the two-part reliability analysis derived from Aquilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 LEd.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 LEd.2d 637 (1969).

2014Contrary to Wenger's assertions, the legal standard for determining reasonable suspicion based on an informant's tip is the "totality of the circumstances" test, not the two-part reliability analysis derived from Aquilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 LEd.2d 723 (1964), and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 , 89 S.Ct. 584 , 21 LEd.2d 637 (1969).

2012In State v. Shafer, 156 Wn.2d 381, 391 , 128 P.3d 87 (2006), this court held that a child’s spontaneous statements to her mother were not testimonial and that the child’s statements were admissible “if there is compliance with RCW 9A.44.120 and the [State v.] Ryan reliability factors.” Thus, we need only consider whether [the victim’s] statements were admissible under RCW 9A.44.120 and the reliability factors laid out in State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984).

2012In State v. Shafer, 156 Wn.2d 381, 391 , 128 P.3d 87 (2006), this court held that a child’s spontaneous statements to her mother were not testimonial and that the child’s statements were admissible “if there is compliance with RCW 9A.44.120 and the [State v.] Ryan reliability factors.” Thus, we need only consider whether [the victim’s] statements were admissible under RCW 9A.44.120 and the reliability factors laid out in State v. Ryan, 103 Wn.2d 165 , 691 P.2d 197 (1984).

2025Id.

2018In Brathwaite, the Court also weighed the reliability factors against the "corrupting effect of the suggestive identification itself." Brathwaite, 432 U.S. at 114-16 .

2016App. 741 , 748 n.4, 515 P.2d 530 (1973): “Where eyewitnesses to crime summon the police, and the exigencies are such (as in the case of violent crime and the imminent possibility of escape) that ascertainment of the identity and background of the informants would be unreasonable, the reliability requirement might be further relaxed.” Northness, 20 Wn.

1990State v. Chatmon, 9 Wn.

2015See McManamon v. Washko, 2006 PA Super 245 , 906 A.2d 1259, 1267 ; State v. Fields, 120 Haw. 73 , 89 n.3, 201 P.3d 586 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d, 115 Haw. 503 , 168 P.3d 955 (2007). 2 Until ER 801(d)(l)(i) is amended accordingly, or until our Supreme Court overrules Smith , Washington courts are bound by the reliability test set forth in Smith in determining the admissibility of any prior inconsistent statement made during a police interview.

2015See McManamon v. Washko, 2006 PA Super 245 , 906 A.2d 1259, 1267 ; State v. Fields, 120 Haw. 73 , 89 n.3, 201 P.3d 586 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d, 115 Haw. 503 , 168 P.3d 955 (2007). 2 Until ER 801(d)(l)(i) is amended accordingly, or until our Supreme Court overrules Smith , Washington courts are bound by the reliability test set forth in Smith in determining the admissibility of any prior inconsistent statement made during a police interview.

2015See McManamon v. Washko, 2006 PA Super 245 , 906 A.2d 1259, 1267 ; State v. Fields, 120 Haw. 73 , 89 n.3, 201 P.3d 586 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d, 115 Haw. 503 , 168 P.3d 955 (2007). 2 Until ER 801(d)(l)(i) is amended accordingly, or until our Supreme Court overrules Smith , Washington courts are bound by the reliability test set forth in Smith in determining the admissibility of any prior inconsistent statement made during a police interview.

2015See McManamon v. Washko, 2006 PA Super 245 , 906 A.2d 1259, 1267 ; State v. Fields, 120 Haw. 73 , 89 n.3, 201 P.3d 586 (Ct. App. 2005), aff’d, 115 Haw. 503 , 168 P.3d 955 (2007). 2 Until ER 801(d)(l)(i) is amended accordingly, or until our Supreme Court overrules Smith , Washington courts are bound by the reliability test set forth in Smith in determining the admissibility of any prior inconsistent statement made during a police interview.

2014See Sieler, 95 Wn.2d at 48 ; Hopkins, 128 Wn.

2014See Sieler, 95 Wn.2d at 48 ; Hopkins, 128 Wn.

2003The United States Supreme Court has recognized an "established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable...." Id. at 68 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (citing Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Mancusi, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ).

2003The United States Supreme Court has recognized an "established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable...." Id. at 68 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (citing Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Mancusi, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ).

2003The United States Supreme Court has recognized an "established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable...." Id. at 68 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (citing Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Mancusi, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ).

2003The United States Supreme Court has recognized an "established rule that prior trial testimony is admissible upon retrial if the declarant becomes unavailable...." Id. at 68 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 (citing Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237 , 15 S.Ct. 337 , 39 L.Ed. 409 (1895); Mancusi, 408 U.S. 204 , 92 S.Ct. 2308 , 33 L.Ed.2d 293 ).

2001During Mr. Jordan's trial, in response to his offer of proof that Mr. Ramirez's hearsay statement should be admitted at trial through a defense witness's testimony, the court looked at the reliability factors cited in State v. Gee, 52 Wash. *1106 App. 357, 760 P.2d 361 (1988). [1] It determined that the factors were "fairly evenly balanced" in favor of the statement's trustworthiness.

2001During Mr. Jordan’s trial, in response to his offer of proof that Mr. Ramirez’s hearsay statement should be admitted at trial through a defense witness’s testimony, the court looked at the reliability factors cited in State v. Gee, 52 Wn.

2023State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (plurality opinion). 9 Nine nonexclusive factors govern the reliability analysis.

2023State v. Woods, 154 Wn.2d 613, 623 , 114 P.3d 1174 (2005) (plurality opinion). 9 Nine nonexclusive factors govern the reliability analysis.

2020Cf., State v. Nava, 177 Wn. App. 272, 296 , 311 P.3d 83 (2013) (considering that the witnesses made their recorded statements within a month after the events in question as a factor tending to show reliability); United States 2 Bradley addresses the interview’s temporal proximity to the alleged instances of sexual abuse in the context of ER 803(a)(5)’s accuracy requirement, but we note that it relates more to whether the witness made the statement when the matter at hand was fresh in her mind. 7 v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774 , 779-80 (9th Cir. 1982) (concluding no error in admission of a recollec

2020Cf., State v. Nava, 177 Wn. App. 272, 296 , 311 P.3d 83 (2013) (considering that the witnesses made their recorded statements within a month after the events in question as a factor tending to show reliability); United States 2 Bradley addresses the interview’s temporal proximity to the alleged instances of sexual abuse in the context of ER 803(a)(5)’s accuracy requirement, but we note that it relates more to whether the witness made the statement when the matter at hand was fresh in her mind. 7 v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774 , 779-80 (9th Cir. 1982) (concluding no error in admission of a recollec

2020Cf., State v. Nava, 177 Wn. App. 272, 296 , 311 P.3d 83 (2013) (considering that the witnesses made their recorded statements within a month after the events in question as a factor tending to show reliability); United States 2 Bradley addresses the interview’s temporal proximity to the alleged instances of sexual abuse in the context of ER 803(a)(5)’s accuracy requirement, but we note that it relates more to whether the witness made the statement when the matter at hand was fresh in her mind. 7 v. Patterson, 678 F.2d 774 , 779-80 (9th Cir. 1982) (concluding no error in admission of a recollec

2019Kennealy, 151 Wn. App. at 881 .

2019Case law, however has imposed this requirement for inculpatoty statements as well.” (footnote omitted)); State v. Nq, 104 Wn.2d 763, 774 , 713 P.2d 63 (1985) (“‘[S]tatements . . tending to . exculpate the accused are more suspect and so should have their admissibility conditioned upon some further provision insuring trustworthiness.” (alterations in original) (quoting FED.

2019Case law, however has imposed this requirement for inculpatoty statements as well.” (footnote omitted)); State v. Nq, 104 Wn.2d 763, 774 , 713 P.2d 63 (1985) (“‘[S]tatements . . tending to . exculpate the accused are more suspect and so should have their admissibility conditioned upon some further provision insuring trustworthiness.” (alterations in original) (quoting FED.

2018The Court concluded, "[T]tle Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement." Perry, 565 U.S. at 248 ; see also Boyer v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2015)(Under Perry, a preliminary reliability analysis is not required unless the identification is procured by law enforcement.).

2018This expert, later identified as Dr. William Brady, issued a written opinion in which he expressed doubt as to the reliability of the test establishing Peralta’s serum blood alcohol level.” Peralta, 191 Wn.