Indiana Supreme Court· 9/6/2006

Howard v. State

Citations

853 N.E.2d 461
2006 Ind. LEXIS 792
2006 WL 2553483

How courts have described this case

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

stating that “prior testimony from a subsequently unavailable witness is admissible at a subsequent trial, provided the defendant had the opportunity to confront the witness when the testimony was originally given”
recognizing, post- Crawford , the validity of the rule that the Confrontation Clause is satisfied if the defendant had the opportunity to confront the witness when the testimony was originally given.
noting that the Sixth Amendment requires only that the defendant be given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine a witness, and that “[w]hether, how, and to what extent the opportunity for cross-examination is used is within the control of the defendant”
“The essential purpose of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation is to ensure that the defendant has the opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses against him.”
pretrial deposition admissible when child witness declared unavailable at trial because defendant “had a full, fair, and adequate opportunity to confront and cross-examine [the witness] . . . when her pretrial deposition was taken”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.