State v. Bargas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding ER 801(d)(1)(ii) inapplicable where the defense inferred victim was not being completely truthful, however the defense theory was that the victim “had fabricated her story from inception.”
• no excited utterance where statements were made after declarant had slept, showered, talked to a friend, and was calmed by an officer before making the statement
• prior consistent statement admissible only where witness “had a reason to fabricate” her story
• no prejudicial error in admitting hearsay when declarant testified at trial
• no prejudicial error in admitting hearsay when declarant testified at trial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).