Apolinar v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the failure to request a continuance waives a complaint that the State withheld exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady
• holding that error in admitting evidence with insufficient notice under article 37.07 § 3(g) was harmless due in part to properly admitted evidence of same nature
• explaining that testimony that declarant was speaking -loudly and was, “animated” weighed in favor of determination that statement was excited utterance
• recognizing appellant = s objection was limited to hearsay and did not raise potential confrontation clause violation
• noting that statement at issue was made in response to question but that question generally asked what happened and that nothing in record suggested that answer was anything other than spontaneous
• noting basis for admitting excited utterance is assumption declarant is incapable of kind of reflection that would enable fabrication of information

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).