15 results for 'cat:"Confrontation" AND cat:"Evidence"'.
J. Halligan finds that the appellate division improperly held that defendant's confrontation rights were violated when the state introduced a standardized form of pedigree information suggesting that defendant lived in a basement where a gun allegedly used in a road rage incident had been discovered. The form is prepared for all New York City arrestees to assist in bail decisions and thus had not been created primarily for trial testimony. Reversed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Halligan, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 39, Categories: confrontation, evidence
J. Dato finds that the trial court erred by allowing the state to present hearsay testimony during a murder trial. The state failed to show it diligently tried to locate the witness before it relied on her preliminary hearing testimony, so defendant's murder conviction is reversed. Also, lying in wait and torture murder special circumstances against a co-defendant based on placing the victim in a fire while allegedly alive are supported by sufficient evidence and may be retried. And the trial court improperly allowed the state to introduce evidence that defendant was a Satan worshipper, as it had minimal probative value. Reversed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Dato, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: D082754, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Murder
J. Procaccini affirms the district court's findings that police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, later convicted of first-degree murder, and that police did not materially misrepresent information in an application for a warrant to search the defendant's residence, along with its denial of the defendant's motion to admit reverse-Spreigl evidence and his request to cross-examine a lead investigator as to whether police had investigated unnamed suspects from a prior shooting. Security footage depicting the defendant having an "animated exchange" with the victim at a bar, monitoring the victim inside the bar, going outside to an idling vehicle and reaching inside, climbing into a car across the street and turning off the headlights, the victim walking toward the car and the victim's subsequent collapse in the street near the car was sufficient to establish probable cause to arrest the defendant for the victim's murder. The district court also did not clearly err in finding that police's description of this interaction as a "confrontation" in their search warrant application was not reckless misrepresentation. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that prior crimes of another person in the car and at the scene were not relevant to this case and in excluding that evidence, since there are few similarities between those crimes and this one, or in denying the request to question the lead investigator, since it properly cited concerns about the risk of creating unfair prejudice or impugning the victim's character and about a lack of relevance. Affirmed.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court, Judge: Procaccini, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: A23-0154, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Murder
J. Miller finds the trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation rights when it admitted the victim's testimony from a pretrial hearing during defendant's case on assault and abduction charges. Although the victim was unable to testify at trial, defendant thoroughly cross-examined him during the hearing. Meanwhile, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to admit evidence he was cleared of a false accusation of assault against the same victim because the victim did not make the accusation and, therefore, defendant could not impeach his testimony. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Miller, Filed On: March 11, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-886, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Assault
[Consolidated] J. Goleman finds the trial court properly convicted defendant for assault by impeding breath and causing bodily injury. A neighbor testified the couple, who lived in a tent, were involved in a boisterous domestic dispute that continued through the evening. The neighbor saw defendant grab his girlfriend in a "bear hug" when trying to force her back into the tent. Defendant only lodged a hearsay objection to out-of-court statements made by the girlfriend, who did not appear, and failed to preserve his claim the admission violated his right to confrontation. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Goleman , Filed On: February 28, 2024, Case #: 09-23-00113-CR, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Assault
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Waldick finds defendant's confrontation rights were not violated when a witness at a codefendant's juvenile probable cause hearing testified about statements made by the codefendants. The hearing was not a trial that implicated defendant's constitutional rights. Meanwhile, despite the lack of DNA evidence to place defendant at the scene of the home invasion, his convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, including the testimony of his codefendants and a bruise on his back that matched the location of an injury inflicted by one of the victims. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Waldick, Filed On: December 11, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-4474, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Juvenile Law
J. Singas finds that the appellate division properly held that confrontation violations had not occurred in convicting defendant, a nanny, of the stabbing deaths of two children in her care because the admission of "testimonial" autopsy reports and the failure to allow defendant to cross-examine the medical examiner who wrote the reports constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the confession entered in mounting an insanity defense. Affirmed.
Court: New York Court Of Appeals, Judge: Singas, Filed On: November 20, 2023, Case #: 74, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Murder
J. Gravois finds that defendant was properly convicted as a principal to second degree murder based on the admission of evidence of the content of two 911 calls. In this case, the information relayed to the the 911 operators was necessary to resolve an ongoing emergency of hearing gunshots and people fleeing the scene of the gunshots. The 911 calls were not testimonial because the conversations between the callers and 911 operators were not in formal settings, but in the immediate aftermath of the incident and before the police arrived on the scene. Therefore, the admission of the calls did not violate defendant's right to confrontation. Affirmed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Gravois, Filed On: November 15, 2023, Case #: 23-KA-55, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Murder
J. Bush finds the trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation rights when it admitted into evidence a letter written by the victim about defendant's stalking. Although the letter was testimonial, sufficient evidence in the record showed defendant killed the victim to prevent him from testifying, which allowed for application of the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Bush, Filed On: October 17, 2023, Case #: 22-3587, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Murder
J. Harris holds that the trial court was within its discretion to rely on out-of-court written statements to bind defendant over for trial on DUI and drug charges. Reliable hearsay includes written statements by declarants, but statute does not require that such statements be written by the declarant as long as the declarant acknowledges the content of the statement with a signature. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harris, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 20210890-CA, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Dui
J. Egan finds that the lower court properly convicted defendant based on his guilty plea to burglary as a participant in a home invasion. Extended court commentary at sentencing included a victim's "intemperate and inappropriate" out-of-court statements, but defendant's confrontation rights had not been violated and he received the sentence expected under the guilty plea. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Egan, Filed On: July 27, 2023, Case #: 112158, Categories: Burglary, confrontation, evidence
J. Alexander finds the trial court did not violate defendant's confrontation rights when it limited his attorney's cross-examination of the victim. The attorney was still able to question the victim about his previous criminal convictions and the terms of his probation, which allowed for a full defense and for the attorney to put forth defendant's theory of the case, which involved fabrication accusations. Additionally, there was evidence to corroborate the victim's version of events, including testimony from hospital staff that treated the victim's injuries; therefore, the limiting of the cross-examination did not prejudice defendant in any way. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court, Judge: Alexander, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: SC20620, Categories: Burglary, confrontation, evidence
J. Durrant finds that the district court was within its discretion to admit other-acts evidence when trying defendant for the sexual assaults of six women. The Supreme Court abandons the doctrine of chances precedent, yet the other-acts evidence was properly admitted under other rules of evidence. Also, out-of-court statements were properly admitted under exemptions to the prohibition on hearsay. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Supreme Court, Judge: Durrant, Filed On: June 1, 2023, Case #: 20190336, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Sex Offender
J. Soto finds a lower court ruled correctly in convicting defendant, a former police officer, of assault causing bodily injury and official oppression. Defendant argued that his confrontation clause rights had been violated when prosecutors entered video evidence containing statements from witnesses whom he was not allowed to confront, but defendant did not properly raise a hearsay objection and any error caused by admitting said evidence was not so great as to effect the outcome of defendant’s case. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: May 9, 2023, Case #: 08-22-00138-CR, Categories: confrontation, evidence, Due Process