Romo v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no abuse of discretion where defendant failed to provide any reason why playing the recording for jury would provide discernable, relevant evidence of demeanor, tone, inflection, etc.
• “Applying the rale to limit the evidence of content to the original Spanish recordings would not serve the puipose of the rale because it could not prove any content to the jury.”
• admission of foreign-language translation transcripts is not governed by Indiana’s Best Evidence Rule, 17 Ind. R. Evid. 1002, since playing those recordings “would not serve the purpose of the rule because it could not prove any content to the jury”
• admission of transcripts of translations of foreign-language recordings is not governed by Indiana’s Best Evidence Rule, Ind. R. Evid. 1002, since playing the recordings “would not serve the purpose of the rule because it could not prove any content to the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• United States v. Chavez
  Tenth Circuit· 2020-09-30· cited 35×
• State v. Enrique Lomeli Rodriguez
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2016-12-12

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Phillip Onori and Theodore Bukky
  Fifth Circuit· 1976-07-26· cited 205×
• United States v. Grajales-Montoya
  Eighth Circuit· 1997-06-26· cited 66×
• Small v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2000-10-19· cited 49×
• United States v. Rafael Valencia and Luis Arturo Penaflor
  Fifth Circuit· 1992-04-23· cited 30×
• United States v. Rosario Placensia, Also Known as Cheyenne, Also Known as Jaime
  Eighth Circuit· 2003-12-29· cited 25×
• United States v. Sergio Estrada
  Seventh Circuit· 2001-06-22· cited 24×
• Tobar v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2000-12-20· cited 19×
• Roby v. State
  Indiana Supreme Court· 2001-02-27· cited 7×
• Romo v. State
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2010-06-23· cited 1×