Court of Appeals of Arizona· 8/4/2005

State v. Parks

Citations

116 P.3d 631
211 Ariz. 19
462 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 31
2005 Ariz. App. LEXIS 90

How courts have described this case

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

rejecting state’s argument that an excited utterance 6 “can never be testimonial” under Crawford
commenting that “[w]hile a declarant’s emotional state may ‘still’ reflection, . . . such a declarant may nevertheless reasonably appreciate or expect that his statement will have an impact on whether an arrest is made, charges are brought or guilt is attributed”
\[P]olice questioning during a field investigation does not automatically exempt the statements from being testimonial.\
“[PJolice questioning during a field investigation does not automatically exempt the statements from being testimonial.”
“The Agreement . . . specified that the 28 1 parties were independent contractors and did not purport to create a fiduciary 2 relationship.”
“Although we review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule for abuse of discretion, we review a trial court’s determination of a Confrontation Clause violation de novo.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Norris, Irvine, Snow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 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.