Somervell v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the defendant's confrontation rights were not implicated by the introduction of a child's videotaped statement because the child testified, giving the defendant \a full and complete opportunity to confront and cross-examine him\
• holding that statements mother overheard her autistic child make were not testimonial
• holding that the defendant's confrontation rights were not implicated by the introduction of a child's videotaped statement because the child testified, giving the defendant “a full and complete opportunity to confront and cross-examine him”
• considering cumulativeness of improperly admitted Williams rule testimony as a factor in finding error harmless
• affirming conviction, despite admission of the child victim's videotaped statement given in response to police questioning, because the victim was available to testify, did testify, and the defendant had a full opportunity to confront and cross-examine him

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).