Court of Appeals of Maryland· 11/18/1997

State v. Harrell

Citations

702 A.2d 723
348 Md. 69
1997 Md. LEXIS 561

How courts have described this case

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

holding that declarant’s statement, allegedly made under stress of excitement of an assault, that the defendant also had committed theft of an automobile, was not related to the pertinent startling event, that is, the assault
stating that in order to qualify under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule, the “declarant’s statement must have some connection with the startling event in order to relate to the startling event ....”
“In construing a rule, we apply principles of interpretation similar to those used to construe a statute.”
“In construing a rule, we apply principles of interpretation similar to those used to construe a statute”
An out-of-court statement that the defendant committed a particular crime or bad act held to be inadmissible as hearsay
“In construing a rule, we apply principles of interpretation similar to those used to construe a statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bell, Eldridge, Rodowsky, Chasanow, Raker, Wilner, Karwacki

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.