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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1989–1997 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dementgreen2 sentences1997People v. Dement, supra. Here, the codefendant was unavailable to testify because his trial was pending and he had a constitutional right to remain silent. *1077 The statement meets the second prong of the Ohio v. Roberts test because the statement is admissible as a declaration against penal interest. 1990Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [7] In People v. Dement, 661 P.2d 675 (Colo.1983), we adopted the Ohio v. Roberts test in addressing challenges to the admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial based on both federal and state constitutional grounds. [8] The trial court emphasized that because the witness was a physician—a neutral witness—the reliability of her testimony was quite substantial. | 1 | 4 |
Brian Nelson v. Catherine Farreygreen2 sentences1989See also Nelson v. Farrey, 874 F.2d 1222, 1231 (7th Cir.1989) (Flaum, J., concurring, argues that Inadi does not repudiate Ohio v. Roberts test in all cases). 1989See also Nelson v. Farrey, 874 F.2d 1222, 1231 (7th Cir.1989) (Flaum, J., concurring, argues that Inadi does not repudiate Ohio v. Roberts test in all cases). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eatongreen2 sentences1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin 1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin | 1 | 1 |
Glendening v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin 1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowing c | 1 | 1 |
Wildermuth v. Stategreen2 sentences1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin 1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin | 1 | 1 |
Glendening v. Floridagreen2 sentences1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin 1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowing c | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S.___, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowin 1989Accord, Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 219-20 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 3219 , 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in considering admission of hearsay and videotape child sexual abuse testimony); State v. Eaton, 244 Kan. 370, 384-85 , 769 P.2d 1157, 1167-68 (1989) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts two-part test to consider whether state properly used closed circuit television testimony of child sexual abuse victim); Wildermuth v. State, 310 Md. 496, 515-17 , 530 A.2d 275, 285 (1987) (court applies Ohio v. Roberts test in upholding statute allowing c | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gallaghergreen2 sentences1989But see State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 347-48 , 554 A.2d 221, 225 (1988) (court found that Inadi repudiated Roberts requirement that declarant be unavailable; thus unavailability does not apply to admission of hearsay statements of child victims of sexual crimes). 1989But see State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 347-48 , 554 A.2d 221, 225 (1988) (court found that Inadi repudiated Roberts requirement that declarant be unavailable; thus unavailability does not apply to admission of hearsay statements of child victims of sexual crimes). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1990Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [7] In People v. Dement, 661 P.2d 675 (Colo.1983), we adopted the Ohio v. Roberts test in addressing challenges to the admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial based on both federal and state constitutional grounds. [8] The trial court emphasized that because the witness was a physician—a neutral witness—the reliability of her testimony was quite substantial. 1990Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 62 , 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2537 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). [7] In People v. Dement, 661 P.2d 675 (Colo.1983), we adopted the Ohio v. Roberts test in addressing challenges to the admission of hearsay evidence in a criminal trial based on both federal and state constitutional grounds. [8] The trial court emphasized that because the witness was a physician—a neutral witness—the reliability of her testimony was quite substantial. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
People v. District Court of El Paso County
green
2 sentences1989People v. District Court, 776 P.2d at 1087 . [7] Here, the defendant made no showing that he would benefit from the in-court testimony of M.W. 1989People v. District Court, 776 P.2d at 1087 . . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.