© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.
110K662.8 / FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY / Page 1Most Cited Cases
[Cited 29 times for this legal issue]
State v. Forrest, 596 S.E.2d 22
110 CRIMINAL LAW
110XX Trial
110XX(C) Reception of Evidence
110k662 Right of Accused to Confront Witnesses
110k662.8
N.C.App.,2004
Victim's statements to police officer, after the police had rescued her from the kidnapping and assault, were non-testimonial, and thus, Confrontation Clause did not preclude their admission at defendant's trial; the statements were made immediately after the rescue and with no time for reflection or thought on victim's part, the statements were initiated spontaneously by victim, and victim was not providing formal statement, deposition, or affidavit, she was not aware she was bearing witness, and she was not aware her utterances might impact further legal proceedings. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 14 times for this legal issue]
State v. Jackson, 503 S.E.2d 101
N.C.,1998
Where hearsay proffered by the prosecution comes within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the confrontation clause of the North Carolina Constitution is not violated, even though no particularized showing is made as to the necessity for using such hearsay or as to its reliability or trustworthiness. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 9 times for this legal issue]
State v. Blackstock, 598 S.E.2d 412
N.C.App.,2004
Murder victim's out-of-court statements to his wife and daughter during personal conversations that took place at hospital over a series of several days after shooting and at a time when his physical condition was improving were nontestimonial in nature, for purposes of determining whether admission of the hearsay statements violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 9 times for this legal issue]
State v. Smith, 323 S.E.2d 316
N.C.,1984
Where there has been substantial compliance with purposes behind constitutional confrontation requirement, hearsay evidence may be admitted. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 8 times for this legal issue]
State v. Clark, 598 S.E.2d 213
N.C.App.,2004
Witness's testimony in an earlier trial, her statements to police officer during initial investigation, and her affidavit, which contained recorded statements implicating defendant, made under oath during police questioning, all constituted "testimonial evidence," thus requiring further Confrontation Clause analysis under Crawford to determine their admissibility. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions.
[Cited 8 times for this legal issue]
State v. Rogers, 428 S.E.2d 220
N.C.App.,1993
Because residual exception to hearsay rule is not firmly rooted in jurisprudence, admissibility under this exception of out-of-court statements of child determined to be unavailable to testify at trial requires case-by-case examination of facts to ensure that elements of confrontation clause are fully
satisfied. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Rules of Evid., Rule 803(24).
[Cited 7 times for this legal issue]
State v. Walker, 613 S.E.2d 330
N.C.App.,2005
Where evidence is admitted for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted, such as corroboration or the basis of an expert's opinion, the protection afforded by the Confrontation Clause against testimonial statements is not at issue. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 7 times for this legal issue]
State v. Rogers, 428 S.E.2d 220
N.C.App.,1993
Hearsay evidence which does not fall within firmly rooted hearsay exception is presumptively unreliable for confrontation clause purposes, although it may meet confrontation clause reliability standards if it is supported by showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 7 times for this legal issue]
State v. Deanes, 374 S.E.2d 249
N.C.,1988
Where trial court correctly found that elements of necessity and trustworthiness were met under the residual exception to the hearsay rule for admission of child's statements concerning sexual abuse by defendant,
defendant's confrontation rights were not violated. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23; Rules of Evid., Rule 803(24).
[Cited 6 times for this legal issue]
State v. Forrest, 596 S.E.2d 22
N.C.App.,2004
The Confrontation Clause analysis for admission of an unavailable witness's statements against a criminal defendant is whether a particular statement is testimonial or non-testimonial in nature, and not whether the statement falls into a well-rooted hearsay exception. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 5 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
In determining whether a statement is testimonial for confrontation clause purposes, a court considers whether a reasonable person in the declarant's position would know or should have known his or her statements would be used at a subsequent trial, and such determination is to be measured by an objective, not subjective, standard. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 5 times for this legal issue]
State v. Jackson, 503 S.E.2d 101
N.C.,1998
While the confrontation clause and rules of hearsay may protect similar values, it would be an erroneous simplification to conclude that the Confrontation Clause is merely a codification of hearsay rules; evidence admitted under an exception to the hearsay rule may still violate the confrontation clause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 5 times for this legal issue]
Matter of Lucas, 380 S.E.2d 563
N.C.App.,1989
In juvenile delinquency proceeding, admission of out-of-court statement of three-year-old child to her mother regarding alleged incident of sexual abuse committed by juvenile did not infringe upon juvenile's constitutional right to confrontation, as evidence was both necessary and trustworthy; child was unavailable to testify as result of trial court's declaration of incompetency, evidentiary importance of child's statements adequately demonstrated necessity for using hearsay declaration, and trial court's failure to make specific findings on trustworthy issue was immaterial, as they came within requirements of medical diagnosis or treatment exception of hearsay rule. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23; Rules of Evid., Rule 803(4).
[Cited 5 times for this legal issue]
State v. Deanes, 374 S.E.2d 249
N.C.,1988
Confrontation clause imposes a requirement of trustworthiness on evidence admitted under residual exception to the hearsay rule; statement of hearsay declarant is admissible only if it bears adequate indicia of reliability. Rules of Evid., Rule 803(24); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
Victim's out-of-court identification of defendant in photographic lineup constituted testimonial evidence, and thus admission of identification through testimony of detective violated defendant's right of confrontation in assault and robbery prosecution; identification was made in response to structured police questioning, for at the time of the lineup, detective knew what allegedly happened to victim and had previously narrowed the scope of potential suspects, and his purpose in conducting the interview was to establish probable cause to obtain a warrant specifically for defendant's arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Brigman, 615 S.E.2d 21
N.C.App.,2005
Alleged child victim's out-of-court statements to his foster mother indicating type of sexual activity he and his brother engaged in with defendant were nontestimonial in nature, and thus, Confrontation Clause did not preclude their admission in sex offense prosecution; victim's statements were spontaneous answers to foster mother's open-ended inquiries, and no evidence suggested that victim made these statements with the idea that they would be used prosecutorially, as victim was not quite six years old at the time he made the statements, and victim did not seem to know that what defendant was making him and his brother do constituted criminal activity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Bell, 603 S.E.2d 93
N.C.,2004
Admission of out-of-court statements made to police officer by victim of prior robbery committed by defendant, for purposes of proving prior crime of violence aggravating circumstance during penalty phase of capital murder trial, violated defendant's constitutional right to confrontation, where statements were testimonial in nature, and record was devoid of evidence that defendant had opportunity to cross-examine victim of earlier robbery at any point before victim's statement was introduced into evidence through officer's testimony.
U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. § 15A-2000(e)(3).
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Waddell, 504 S.E.2d 84
N.C.App.,1998
The confrontation clauses in the United States and North Carolina Constitutions prohibit the State from introducing hearsay evidence in a criminal trial unless the State: (1) demonstrates the necessity for using such testimony, and (2) establishes the inherent trustworthiness of the original declaration. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Gainey, 468 S.E.2d 227
N.C.,1996
Evidence which falls within firmly rooted hearsay exception does not violate defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Swindler, 450 S.E.2d 907
N.C.,1994
Corroborating evidence should not be used to support hearsay statement's particularized guarantee of trustworthiness, as required for admission under residual hearsay rule; confrontation clause requires that statement be inherently trustworthy. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Rules of Evid., Rule 804(b)(5), G.S. § 8C-1.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Peterson, 446 S.E.2d 43
N.C.,1994
Statement which falls under residual hearsay exception can meet confrontation clause standards if it is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness based on totality of circumstances surrounding making of statement. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23; Rules of Evid., Rule 804(b)(5), G.S. § 8C-1.
[Cited 4 times for this legal issue]
State v. Kerley, 360 S.E.2d 464
N.C.App.,1987
Admission, in arson prosecution, under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule, of out-of-court statement made to police officer violated defendant's right of confrontation and clearly prejudiced defendant's case, even though defendant's objections prevented detective from testifying as to what medical staff had told detective about physical and mental condition of declarant, who had sustained head injury; testimony from declarant's treating physician or other health care provider with adequate personal knowledge of declarant's condition could have satisfied the state's burden of showing unavailability if in fact declarant had been unable to testify, and thus, the State failed to show that it had made good-faith effort to produce declarant at trial. Rules of Evid., Rule 803(2); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
Statements made by witnesses or victims in response to preliminary questions asked by police who respond to emergency calls for help to ascertain whether the victim, other civilians, or the police themselves are in danger are not testimonial for confrontation clause purposes, because they are not, by their very nature, considered structured police questioning. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
The role of a police officer is not determinative as to whether a statement is testimonial for confrontation clause purposes; rather, the determinative factor is the particular status or stage of the investigation, for when the investigation goes beyond preliminary fact-gathering, the investigation will tend to become structured police questioning and will likely produce testimonial statements, and thus the role of the officer is merely a factor to be considered in determining the stage of the investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 603 S.E.2d 559
N.C.App.,2004
Out-of-court statements by victim made to police officer during course of police investigation describing her attack and her identification of defendant during officer's photographic lineup, constituted testimonial evidence, for purposes of determining whether admission of statements violated defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause in assault and robbery prosecution; statements were taken during course of police investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 603 S.E.2d 559
N.C.App.,2004
Victim's out-of-court identification of defendant in photographic line-up constituted testimonial evidence, for purposes of determining whether admission of identification violated defendant's rights under Confrontation Clause in assault and robbery prosecution; photographic line-up was very similar to the ex parte and extra-judicial examinations by government officials, and identification of defendant was like having been given in response to structured police questioning. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Carmon, 576 S.E.2d 730
N.C.App.,2003
Police officer's testimony concerning testing on substance found on defendant, which was performed by another officer, did not breach defendant's constitutional right to confront and cross examine witness in prosecution for trafficking cocaine by possession, trafficking cocaine by transportation, and possession with intent to sell and deliver cocaine, where testifying officer was tendered and accepted without objection as expert on testing of controlled substances, and his opinion was based on data reasonably relied upon by experts in his field. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Washington, 506 S.E.2d 283
N.C.App.,1998
Admission of police officers' testimony as to statements made by rape victim, who was incompetent to testify, violated defendant's confrontation rights; although trial court found that such statements were admissible under residual hearsay exceptions because they were "trustworthy," court made no findings of fact supporting that conclusion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23; Rules of Evid., Rules 803(24), 804(b)(5), G.S. § 8C-1.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Felton, 412 S.E.2d 344
N.C.,1992
Admission of hearsay statements attributed to murder victim, under residual hearsay exception, did not violate defendant's right to confront witnesses, where admission was supported by showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Rules of Evid., Rule 804(b)(5).
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Roper, 402 S.E.2d 600
N.C.,1991
Admission of deputy sheriff's testimony as to what murder victim had told him on day he died did not violate defendant's right to confrontation; deputy sheriff's discussion with victim contained particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and victim's truthfulness was sufficiently clear that cross-examination at time of statement would have been of marginal utility. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
Matter of Lucas, 380 S.E.2d 563
N.C.App.,1989
In criminal trial where person making out-of-court statement does not testify, state is prohibited, by virtue of confrontation clauses of State and Federal Constitutions, from introducing hearsay evidence unless proponent of testimony shows necessity for using hearsay declaration and inherent trustworthiness of declaration. Const. Art. 1, § 23; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 3 times for this legal issue]
State v. Gregory, 338 S.E.2d 110
N.C.App.,1985
Merely classifying statement as hearsay exception does not automatically satisfy requirements of confrontation clauses [Const. Art. 1, § 23; U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6].
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
When police questioning shifts from mere preliminary fact-gathering to eliciting statements for use at a subsequent trial, any statements elicited are testimonial in nature for confrontation clause purposes. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
A trial court, in analyzing whether an out-of-court statement is admissible under confrontation clause, should make an initial determination whether the statement is testimonial or nontestimonial, and if the statement is testimonial, the trial court must then ask whether the declarant is available or unavailable to testify during the trial; if the declarant is unavailable, the trial court must determine whether the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant about this statement, for if the accused had such an opportunity, the statement may be admissible if it is not otherwise excludable hearsay, however if they did not have such
opportunity, the statement must be excluded. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
State v. Lewis, 619 S.E.2d 830
N.C.,2005
Out-of-court statements victim made to police officer responding to robbery incident describing the crime and her attacker were non-testimonial, and thus
admission of statements through officer's testimony did not violate defendant's rights under confrontation clause in assault and robbery prosecution; officer was a patrol or field officer rather than a detective or investigator, when officer spoke with victim, he did not have a substantial amount of information about the alleged incident, and thus the focus of officer's interview with victim to gather as much preliminary information as possible about the alleged incident, and it was unlikely that a person in victim's position would or should have reasonably expected her statements to be used at trial. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6; West's N.C.G.S.A. Const. Art. 1, § 23.
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
State v. Brigman, 615 S.E.2d 21
N.C.App.,2005
Appellate review of whether defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation is violated is three-fold: (1) whether the evidence admitted was testimonial in nature; (2) whether the trial court properly ruled the declarant was unavailable; and (3) whether defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]
State v. Allen, 614 S.E.2d 361
N.C.App.,2005
Statements made by mother of six-year-old girl who had been shot and by wife of second shooting victim, to police officer, shortly after the shootings, were testimonial, as element for determining whether admission of hearsay statements of unavailable witnesses would violate Confrontation Clause; even if mother and wife were still operating under stress of shootings, their statements were not spontaneous and instead were elicited by police interrogation 20 minutes after shootings, so that mother and wife had enough time to reflect, thereby making it more probable that they would have reasonably believed their statements would be available for use at trial, and officer's focus was on investigating the crime, because there was no longer an immediate threat to wife and mother. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6.
[Cited 2 times for this legal issue]