Felix Amador 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 any error in admission of robbery victim’s statements to police officer, identifying defendant, under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule was harmless error, where similar statements were testified to by three other witnesses
• holding that any error in admission of robbery victim’s statements to police officer, identifying defendant, under excited utterance exception to hearsay rule was harmless error, where similar statements were testified to by three other witnesses
• holding that the primary purpose of obtaining the witness’s statements was to respond to an ongoing emergency when police spoke to witness at the scene shortly after an armed robbery and believed that armed assailants were still in the area
• holding similar statements made by another witness amounted to evidence that had little or no influence on jury
• holding similar statements made by another witness amounted to evidence that had little or no influence on jury
• noting statements are testimonial when circumstances objectively indicate that there is not an ongoing emergency

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).