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.
6 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lagunas v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Lagunas v. State , 187 S.W.3d 503, 519 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. ref’d). 3: In Wall , although not a case involving the statement of a child, the court of criminal appeals recently held, “The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of the startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement.” 184 S.W.3d at 742 . 4: The Court stressed that whether or not a statement was sworn is not a determinative factor in finding a statement to be testimonial. 2006Lagunas v. State, 187 S.W.3d 503, 519 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. ref'd). [3] In Wall , although not a case involving the statement of a child, the court of criminal appeals recently held, "The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of the startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement." 184 S.W.3d at 742 . [4] The Court stressed that whether or not a statement was sworn is not a determinative factor in finding a statement to be testimonial. | 3 | 3 |
Wall v. Stategreen2 sentences2015The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a rea sonable declarant., similarly situated (thatis, excited by the stress of a startling event), would have had the capacity to app reciate the legal ramifications of her statement." Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d at 742 (emphasis added). 2006Lagunas v. State, 187 S.W.3d 503, 519 (Tex.App.-Austin 2005, pet. ref'd). [3] In Wall , although not a case involving the statement of a child, the court of criminal appeals recently held, "The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of the startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement." 184 S.W.3d at 742 . [4] The Court stressed that whether or not a statement was sworn is not a determinative factor in finding a statement to be testimonial. | 1 | 5 |
United States v. James Saget, Also Known as Heshgreen1 sentence2006The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of a startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement”); see also United States v. Brun, 416 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir.2005) (noting that appellate courts review trial courts’ rulings on *744 the admissibility of hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion but review Confrontation Clause objections to admission of evidence under Crawford de novo); United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 230-31 (2d Cir.2004) (reviewing admis | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Donald James Brun, Jr.green1 sentence2006The testimonial hearsay inquiry focuses on whether a reasonable declarant, similarly situated (that is, excited by the stress of a startling event), would have had the capacity to appreciate the legal ramifications of her statement”); see also United States v. Brun, 416 F.3d 703, 706 (8th Cir.2005) (noting that appellate courts review trial courts’ rulings on *744 the admissibility of hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion but review Confrontation Clause objections to admission of evidence under Crawford de novo); United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 230-31 (2d Cir.2004) (reviewing admis | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2006Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ; see Lagunas, 187 S.W.3d at 515 . [5] We do not agree with the State's contention that our prior opinion holds that any statement under 38.071 is automatically testimonial. 2006Crawford, 541 U.S. at 52 , 124 S.Ct. at 1364 ; see Lagunas, 187 S.W.3d at 515 . [5] We do not agree with the State's contention that our prior opinion holds that any statement under 38.071 is automatically testimonial. | 3 | 2006–2006 |
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.