Oregon Supreme Court· 1/27/1965

State v. Kendrick

Citations

398 P.2d 471
239 Or. 512
1965 Ore. LEXIS 566

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “spontaneous exclamations” fall within an exception to the hearsay rule when these criteria exist: “(1) there must be some occurrence startling enough to produce nervous excitement and render the utterance spontaneous and unreflecting; (2
when the trial court denies a motion for a mistrial following a witness’ violation of an exclusion order, the allowance or denial of the motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
when the trial court denies a motion for a mistrial following a witness' violation of an exclusion order, the allowance or denial of the motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
“The ground for the exclusion of hearsay is that the opposing party has no opportunity to confront in court the person making the statement and test his veracity and accuracy by cross examination.” (Citation omitted.)
“The ground for the exclusion of hearsay is that the opposing party has no opportunity to confront in court the person making the statement and test his veracity and accuracy by cross examination.” (Citation omitted.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McAllister, Sloan, Goodwin, Holman, Lusk

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

5 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.