60 Va. App. 237 - Hicks v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Freeman v. United States · 4 Va. App. 438 - Martin v. Commonwealth · Bullcoming v. New Mexico · Commonwealth v. Hudson
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.