Skip to main content

Langham v. State

Citations

  • 305 S.W.3d 568
  • 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 21
  • 2010 WL 715309

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that someone may “call 911 to provide a narrative report of a crime absent imminent danger”
  • explaining that statements admitted only to supply background information, such as to explain conduct, are not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted
  • stating that whether a particular out-of-court statement is testimonial or not is a question of law which must be reviewed de novo
  • stating that whether a particular out-of-court statement is testimonial or not is a question of law which must be reviewed de novo
  • recognizing Crawford’s holding that even testimonial out-of-court 8 statements do not violate confrontation when offered for some evidentiary purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted
  • stating that reviewing courts consider whether surrounding circumstances objectively indicate that primary purpose of interview or interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Price, Meyers, Womack, Johnson, Holcomb, Cochran, Keller, Keasler, Hervey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named Langham v. State

16 other CourtListener records share this case 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.