State v. Luzanilla

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that evidence “generally admissible under Rule 804(b)(1) but for its missing element” is not the type of evidence for which Rule 804(b)(5) provides an exception to the hearsay rule
• approving of disposition of double jeopardy/collateral estoppel issue in opinion from court of appeals
• “Like a demonstrative aid, if [a demonstration or experiment] assists the trier’s understanding, it is relevant.”
• admission of witness’s testimony from co-defendant’s prior trial was not sufficiently reliable under Roberts to satisfy the Confrontation Clause even though co-defendant’s counsel cross-examined the witness at the earlier trial
• “[R]etrial following a hung jury is simply a continuation of a single prosecution].]”
• “[R]etrial following a hung jury is simply a continuation of a single prosecution....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).