Skip to main content

Sandoval v. State

Citations

  • 52 S.W.3d 851
  • 2001 WL 619567

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding it was permissible for prosecutor to respond to defense counsel’s suggestion that prosecution manipulated testimony of witness
  • noting that discovering both what is injured and what is not injured are equally pertinent to medical treatment and diagnosis
  • holding statements made by the patient's mother were admissible, finding that the mother's motive for making the statements was to obtain an accurate diagnosis and that the statement was relied upon by the doctor
  • “[T]he declarant’s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment.”
  • A [T]he declarant = s motive in making the statement must be consistent with the purpose of promoting treatment. @
  • victim’s testimony alone was sufficient evidence of penetration and sufficient to identify defendant as assailant without medical evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Schneider, Hedges, Nuchia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Sandoval v. State

35 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.