Court of Appeals of Arizona· 4/20/2006

State v. King

Citations

132 P.3d 311
212 Ariz. 372
476 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3
2006 Ariz. App. LEXIS 54

How courts have described this case

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

“[T]he mere fact that statements may be considered excited utterances does not automatically remove them from Confrontation Clause analysis.”
defendant’s objection below that “he would not be able to cross- examine” unavailable witness whose hearsay statements to 911 operator were admitted at trial “were sufficient to avoid waiver of his Confrontation Clause argument”
woman calling 9-1-1 after just being injured is not contemplating being witness but 14 is \usually trying simply to save her own life\ (quoting People v. Moscat, 777 N.Y.S.2d 875, 880 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2004)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gemmill, Ehrlich, Snow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.