Supreme Court of Delaware· 9/23/1994

Smith v. State

Citations

647 A.2d 1083
1994 Del. LEXIS 293
1994 WL 531391

How courts have described this case

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

admissibility of statement in violation of confrontation clause reviewed under plain error standard despite absence of objection
admissibility of statement in violation of confrontation clause reviewed under plain error standard despite absence of objection
“[C]onstruction of identical rules by the federal judiciary is accorded “great persuasive weight” in our interpretation of the Delaware counterparts.” (citing Hoffman v. Cohen, 538 A.2d 1096, 1098 (Del. 1988
“absent some special indicia of reliability and trustworthiness, hearsay statements are inadmissible”
‘‘As the [United States Supreme] Court in Williamson held, there is no theoretical basis for the admission of neutral, collateral statements. . . . Non-self-incriminatory components of a declaration purportedly falling within [rule] 804 (b) (3
“In a joint trial, admission of a codefendant’s confession that also incriminates the defendant violates the Confrontation Clause, unless the confession is sufficiently redacted to exclude the possibility that a jury will use it against the defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Veasey, C.J., Walsh and Holland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

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.