State v. Araujo

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Shea

    2008 Vt. 114 (Vt. 2008)   Cited 8 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that initial statement to police by domestic-violence victim — who was "frantic, crying, bleeding from the nose and cut over her eye" — disclosing perpetrator's name was nontestimonial, but that after police "secured the scene and determined that the complainant did not need emergency medical treatment, [police] questioning of complainant obtained testimonial information"

    We do, however, have the benefit of a number of decisions on point from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., United States v. Arnold, 486 F.3d 177 (6th Cir. 2007); Anderson v. State, 163 P.3d 1000 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007); State v. Kirby, 908 A.2d 506 (Conn. 2006); State v. Araujo, 144 P.3d 66 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006); People v. Walker, 728 N.W.2d 902 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006); State v. Hembertt, 696 N.W.2d 473 (Neb. 2005); State v. Ayer, 917 A.2d 214 (N.H. 2006); People v. Bradley, 862 N.E.2d 79 (N.Y. 2006); State v. Mason, 162 P.3d 396 (Wash. 2007).

  2. State v. Araujo

    285 Kan. 214 (Kan. 2007)   Cited 4 times

    The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to nonhearsay evidence and does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in 36 Kan. App. 2d 747, 144 P.3d 66 (2006). Appeal from Sedgwick district court; DAVID W. KENNEDY, judge.

  3. State v. Araujo

    283 Kan. 932 (Kan. 2007)

    February 13, 2007. Appeal from the 36 Kan. App. 2d 747. Petitions for Review of Decisions of the Court of Appeals Granted.

  4. State v. Hart

    453 P.3d 368 (Kan. Ct. App. 2019)

    When raising a Confrontation Clause violation, the failure by the defendant to timely object precludes appellate review. State v. Araujo , 36 Kan. App. 2d 747, 751, 144 P.3d 66 (2006), aff'd 285 Kan. 214, 169 P.3d 1123 (2007). " K.S.A. 60-404 provides that no verdict shall be set aside based upon the erroneous admission of evidence unless an objection was ‘timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.’ "

  5. In re S.R

    2007 Pa. Super. 79 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    e for use at later trial; holding admission of five-year-old daughter's videotaped interview taken by private forensic interviewer violated defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses under Crawford); State v. Ayer, 154 N.H. 500, 917 A.2d 214 (2006) (primary purpose of officer's questioning of defendant's wife near scene of shooting was to enable police to meet ongoing emergency; wife's statements to officer were therefore nontestimonial); Raile v. Colorado, 148 P.3d 126, 132 (Colo. 2006) (court stated unavailable witness's statements more closely resembled facts in Hammon than Davis; no immediate threat even though declarant was "testifying" to police officer in same way she would have testified in court); State v. Bird, 136 Wash.App. 127, 148 P.3d 1058 (2006) (eyewitness's statements to police officer made during course of interrogation were testimonial where primary purpose of interrogation was to establish past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution); State v. Araujo, 36 Kan. App.2d 747, 144 P.3d 66 (2006) (911 caller's statements nontestimonial); State v. Alvarez, 213 Ariz. 467, 143 P.3d 668 (App. 2006) (victim's statements to police officer, made when officer found victim semi-conscious near site where victim's car was stolen and victim was beaten, were nontestimonial; primary purpose of officer's questioning was to meet ongoing emergency). ¶ 25 The Commonwealth, as part of its argument that one should assess what the child thinks of the interview, implies that we should treat child abuse cases differently.