unavailability requirement (Washington) · Go Syfert
← Washington issues

unavailability requirement in Washington

6 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Miffittgreen
washctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990Compare State v. Miffitt, 56 Wn.

1990Compare State v. Miffitt, 56 Wn.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Brand green
wash · 1992
1 sentence

2021Mr. Weber challenges the denial of his motion for a new trial based on the evidence that led to the acquittal and dismissal of charges against his cellmates, characterizing it as “evidence newly-discovered.” (SAG 6 and 8). “[I]n the context of ‘newly discovered evidence,’ a collateral attack is based on ‘similar grounds’ unless the current evidence is significantly different in either quantum or quality from the evidence presented in a previous collateral attack.” Brand, 120 Wn.2d at 370 .

12021–2021
Kasiem v. Switz green
nysd · 2010
1 sentence

2013Kasiem v. Switz. 756 F. Supp. 2d 570 , -7- No. 66151-5-1/8 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

12013–2013
State v. Hieb green
wash · 1986
2 sentences

1989Ohio v. Roberts, supra, is not authority for requiring a showing of unavailability for admission of an excited utterance. 5 Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this court has decided whether the confrontation clause requires a *796 showing of unavailability for admission of excited utterances. 6 This court considered a confrontation clause challenge, but did not address the unavailability requirement because it found the asserted error harmless. 7 State v. Hieb, 107 Wn.2d 97 , 727 P.2d 239 (1986).

1989Ohio v. Roberts, supra, is not authority for requiring a showing of unavailability for admission of an excited utterance. 5 Neither the United States Supreme Court nor this court has decided whether the confrontation clause requires a *796 showing of unavailability for admission of excited utterances. 6 This court considered a confrontation clause challenge, but did not address the unavailability requirement because it found the asserted error harmless. 7 State v. Hieb, 107 Wn.2d 97 , 727 P.2d 239 (1986).

11989–1989
United States v. Inadi green
scotus · 1986
1 sentence

1989Ed. 2d 390 , 106 S. Ct. 1121 (1986) may presage some retreat from the unavailability requirement of Roberts .

11989–1989
State v. Sweeney green
washctapp · 1986
1 sentence

1989State v. Sweeney, supra, did not reach the confrontation clause issue, but merely analyzed the unavailability requirement under the Rules of Evidence.

11989–1989
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Vidal Galdon Aquino, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Ishmael Guillerma Reyes green
ca3 · 1967
1 sentence

1987However, no further factual showing was made that would permit us even to consider how the expense of obtaining a witness' presence or the type of charge might affect the State's obligation to obtain the witness' presence by process or "other reasonable means." See Government of V.I. v. Aquino, supra. We emphasize that the foregoing discussion is intended neither to delineate precisely how much the State was required to do in the instant case nor to exhaust the possible considerations that might affect the unavailability requirement of ER 804 when the witness is in a foreign country.

11987–1987

Where else courts name it

CA 17 (1975–2026) NY 14 (1964–2026) OR 12 (1992–2022) IL 11 (1972–2020) FL 10 (1982–2012) MA 9 (1992–2019) TX 9 (1995–2024) DC 9 (1981–2017) WI 8 (1982–2003) PA 8 (1977–2015) CT 7 (1995–2023) IN 7 (1987–2026) NJ 6 (1971–2018) MD 6 (1989–2005) KS 6 (1988–2014) WV 6 (1984–2011) WA 6 (1987–2021) OH 5 (1992–2022) NC 5 (1989–2009) CO 5 (1989–2016) MN 5 (1987–1999) AZ 5 (1993–2017) TN 5 (1995–2015) HI 4 (1992–2007) VA 4 (1993–2006) IA 4 (1995–2021) MO 4 (1980–2024) LA 3 (1987–2021) VT 3 (1988–2012) AL 3 (1994–2004) ME 2 (1976–1979) MT 2 (1987–1989) UT 2 (1995–2000) MI 2 (2014–2019) NM 2 (2009–2016) MS 2 (2000–2006) RI 2 (1990–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check