Superior Court: The Superior Court for Grant County, No. NATURE OF ACTION: Prosecution for first degree murder. NAMES OF CONCURRING OR DISSENTING JUDGES: Dore, J., concurs in the result only Utter and Smith, JJ., dissent by separate opinion. Constitutional error is harmless when the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable jury would have reached the same verdict had no error occurred. Criminal Law - Review - Harmless Error - Constitutional Error - In General.
#Flotato trial trial
A party's reference in its opening statement to evidence which it expects to be presented at trial and which the court erroneously ruled admissible at a pretrial hearing does not constitute invited error. Appeal - Review - Invited Error - Reference in Opening Statement. Only those circumstances that surround the making of a hearsay statement may be used to establish the statement's reliability for purposes of the confrontation clause.
Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Reliability - Other Evidence of Guilt. The reliability of inculpatory statements sought to be admitted under the declaration against penal interest exception to the rule against hearsay (ER 804(b)(3)) and the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is determined by application of the following nine guidelines: (1) whether the declarant had an apparent motive to lie (2) the declarant's general character (3) whether more than one person heard the statements (4) the spontaneity of the statements (5) whether trustworthiness is suggested from the timing of the statements and the relationship between the declarant and witness (6) whether the statements contained express assertions of past fact (7) whether the declarant's lack of knowledge could be established by cross examination (8) the remoteness of the possibility of the declarant's recollection being faulty and (9) whether the surrounding circumstances suggest that the declarant misrepresented the defendant's involvement. Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Declaration Against Penal Interest - Reliability. Self serving statements do not qualify as declarations against penal interest. In evaluating whether a statement inculpating an accused is against the declarant's penal interest when offered as an exception to the rule against hearsay, trial courts should take great care to determine whether the declarant's statement is self-serving (such as minimizing the declarant's role in the crime). Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Declaration Against Penal Interest - Statements Inculpating Another. A witness asserting the constitutional privilege against self incrimination is legally unavailable to testify for purposes of the ER 804 exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Unavailability of Declarant - Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. The trustworthiness requirement of the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause is satisfied if a hearsay statement inculpating both the declarant and the accused is found to be admissible under the declaration against penal interest exception to the rule against hearsay (ER 804(b)(3)).
Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Reliability - Hearsay Exception - Declaration Against Penal Interest - Trustworthiness.
The declarations against penal interest exception to the rule against hearsay (ER 804(b)(3)) is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception, and the reliability of such statements cannot be presumed. Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Reliability - Hearsay Exception - Declaration Against Penal Interest - In General. Under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, hearsay implicating an accused is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable for trial and the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability or particularized guaranties of trustworthiness. Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay - Right of Confrontation - Test. CASE TITLE: The State of Washington, Respondent, v.
0 kommentar(er)
