State v. Palomo

How courts have described this case

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

• admission of an out-of-court declarant's statements under the excited utterance exception did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation
• admission of an out-of-court declarant's statements under the excited utterance exception did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to confrontation
• coconspirator statements constitute an exemption, as opposed to an exception, from the hearsay rule
• excited utterances by a crime victim to a police officer are not testimonial

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).