Nevada Supreme Court· 10/5/2006

Medina v. State

Citations

143 P.3d 471
122 Nev. 346
2006 Nev. LEXIS 112

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that any potential prejudice from a Crawford violation will be reviewed under a harmless-error analysis
concluding that when State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Confrontation Clause error did not contribute to the verdict, reversal is unnecessary
concluding that when State can show beyond a reasonable doubt that Confrontation Clause error did not contribute to the verdict, reversal is unnecessary
recognizing that court may consider the extent to which testimony is cumulative of other evidence and strength of the State’s case in determining whether its admission was harmless
recognizing that court may consider the extent to which testimony is cumulative of other evidence and strength of the State's case in determining whether its admission was harmless
holding that \hearsay statements are inadmissible. A statement is hearsay if it is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Maupin, Gibbons, Hardesty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.