Supreme Court of Iowa· 11/23/1994

State v. Rojas

Citations

524 N.W.2d 659
1994 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 256
1994 WL 659043

How courts have described this case

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

concluding recantation by witness made admission of her CPC interview “necessary”
discussing the statute (then Iowa Code section 910A.14(3)). In the present case, the State does not rely on Iowa Code section 915.38(3
noting a showing that the evidence is “the most probative evidence” is “[t]he appropriate showing of . . . necessity”
noting open- ended, non-leading questions are not the kind that would prompt a child to fabricate a response
“There is no Turecek violation here because we find the videotape was admissible under rule [5.]803(24).”
“The Confrontation Clause was satisfied here because the hearsay declarant actually testified in court and was available to be cross-examined.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harris, Carter, Neuman, Andreasen, Ternus

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.