Supreme Court of Connecticut· 10/17/2006

State v. Kirby

Citations

908 A.2d 506
280 Conn. 361
2006 Conn. LEXIS 386

How courts have described this case

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

acknowledging that state did not argue that violation of defendant's confrontation rights was harmless error and reversing judgment of trial court
concluding victim's statements were testimonial under Davis where, although vie-tim may have needed medical attention when she made subject statements, statements related past events and victim was no longer under any threat from the defendant
kidnapping victim's statements made to volunteer emergency medical technician as part of technician's immediate response to and medical assessment of the victim at the scene were nontestimonial
emphasizing the existence or absence of “an ongoing emergency or a crime in progress”
finding statements made to a 911 operator by a woman who had just escaped from a kidnapping and assault were testimonial because she had already escaped, despite the fact that she might have needed emergency medical assistance at the time she made the 911 call
\The Court used its `primary purpose' test to hold that these statements were testimonial. . . .\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sullivan, Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Zarella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

70 cases in this archive cite 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.