State v. Agoney

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements made by the defendant during a custodial interrogation over an hour after his arrest were hearsay and did not fall within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule
• reasoning that “spontaneous, excited, or impulsive” utterances warrant “special trustworthiness” because “the observer’s normal powers of reflection and conscious deliberation have been suspended”
• where answers given during interrogation ninety minutes after crime, sixty minutes of which declarant was alone in the patrol car, statements should not have been admitted under Rule 803(2)
• where answers given during interrogation ninety minutes after crime, sixty minutes of which declarant was alone in the patrol car, statements should not have been admitted under Rule 803(2)
• a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose
• a defendant's self-serving statements are hearsay and cannot be admitted into evidence unless they qualify under some exception to the hearsay rule or are used for a non-hearsay purpose

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).