State v. Johnson

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Phillips

    ID No. 1210013321 (Del. Super. Ct. Sep. 3, 2015)

    Jones, 940 A.2d at 13 n.45. See Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that a statement from a conversation, admitted under the stateofmind exception to the hearsay rule, was nontestimonial because it was private, not made under examination, not contained in a formalized document such as an affidavit, deposition or prior testimony transcript, and not made "under circumstances in which an objective person would reasonably believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Johnson, 2005 WL 1952939 (Del. Super. Jul. 19, 2005) (analyzing statements under D.R.E. 803(3) to determine whether "a reasonable person in the position of the declarant would think that his or her statement likely was to be used in the course of investigating and prosecuting a criminal act," which may implicate Crawford ). In this case, the Crawford threshold is not reached because none of Pluck's statements are testimonial.