Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 Va. App. 424 - Harris v. Commonwealth

8 Va. App. 424 - Harris v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ward v. Commonwealth · Doe v. Thomas · 3 Va. App. 544 - Amato v. Commonwealth · Tasker v. Commonwealth · Clark v. Commonwealth

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Evidence of an excited utterance is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted, as an exception to the hearsay rule, provided the extrajudicial statement is “spontaneous and impulsive.” The reliability of the statement, ordinarily guaranteed by oath and cross-examination, is furnished by its spontaneity. . . . The test is whether the statement is the transaction speaking through the declarant or the declarant speaking about the transaction. There is no fixed rule by which the question whether the statement is admissible as an excited utterance can be decided. Resolution of the issue depends on the circumstances of each case and “rests within the sound discretion and judgment of the trial court.” That discretion and judgment, of course, is subject to review. Nonetheless, in a doubtful case there “is a presumption in favor of the action” 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.