Kirkland v. the State

How courts have described this case

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

• we have held that differences in the victims’ ages, sex, and specifics of molestation do not render another act inadmissible
• testimony from victim’s family and her recorded forensic interview were admissible under Child Hearsay Statute even when victim was unresponsive to several questions at trial
• we have held that differences in the victims’ ages, sex, and specifics of molestation do not render another act inadmissible
• sufficient evidence to convict defendant of aggravated child molestation where victim was non-responsive at trial, but jury could consider victim's prior statements to mother, great-grandmother, and forensic interviewer, as well as similar transaction evidence
• “The fact that a child witness is unresponsive or evasive in response to certain questions on the witness stand does not render the child’s out-of-court statements inadmissible under the Child Hearsay Statute or violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation rights of the defendant.”
• jury could consider victim's \prior out-of-court statements about the abuse\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).