State v. Cagley

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding trial court’s exclusion of statements offered as excited utterances, in part, because they were in response to questions by police
• upholding trial court’s exclusion of statements offered as excited utterances, in part, because they were in response to questions by police
• noting the “proponent of the hearsay evidence[] has the burden of proving it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule”
• finding statements to police not sufficiently trustworthy when the alleged victim recanted during the motion in limine
• “The State, as proponent of the hearsay evidence, has the burden of proving it falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).