52 Va. App. 423 - Caison v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A statement comes within the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule and is admissible to prove the truth of the matter stated, when the statement is spontaneous and impulsive, thus guaranteeing its reliability____ The statement must be prompted by a startling event and be made at such time and under such circumstances as to preclude the presumption that it was made as the result of deliberation. In addition, the declarant must have firsthand knowledge of the startling event. The decision whether the statement qualifies as an excited utterance lies within the discretion of the trial court.” 3”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas James Synan, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia · 60 Va. App. 237 - Hicks v. Commonwealth

2. “(1) Was the declarant speaking about current events as they were actually happening, “requiring police assistance” rather than describing past events? (2) Would a “reasonable listener” conclude that the declarant was facing an ongoing emergency that called for [immediate] help? (3) Was the nature of what was asked and answered during the course of a 911 call such that, “viewed objectively, the elicited statements were necessary to be able to resolve the present emergency” rather than “simply to learn ... what had happened in the past?” (4) What was the “level of formality” of the interview? For example, was the caller frantic, in an environment that was neither tranquil nor safe?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Va. App. 579 - Wilder v. Commonwealth

3. “Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances objectively indicate that there is no such ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 55 Va. App. 579 - Wilder v. Commonwealth