J.M. 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 spontaneity of the statement negatives the likelihood of conscious misrepresentation by the declarant and provides the necessary circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness to justify the introduction of the evidence”
• to qualify as a spontaneous statement, the statement must be made without the declarant first engaging in reflective thought

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Deparvine v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2008-09-29· cited 95×
• Hutchinson v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2004-07-01· cited 78×
• Ibar v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2006-03-09· cited 77×
• Shennett v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-09-13· cited 6×
• Merritt v. Crosby
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-01-05· cited 5×
• State v. Adams
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-06-28· cited 3×
• Thompson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-05-30· cited 3×
• JM v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-01-05
• M. D. M. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2023-12-06

Cites

1 case in this archive is cited by this case.

• Sunn v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-01-23· cited 7×