Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

E evidence of sexual abuse from drs physical

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: pondent and Giles, the trial court conducted a voir dire examination of the younger daughter where it was determined that she was not capable of testifying. Trial court admitted statements that the younger daughter made to Dr. Jambura in response to questions he asked regarding the alleged abuse. Respondent and Giles each convicted of two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 16. Giles appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in admitting Jambura's testimony under Idaho's residual hearsay exception. He lost. Wright now appealing, claiming that Dr Jambura's testimony as admitted under the residual hearsay exception, violated her rights under the Confrontation Clause. o Idaho Supreme Court agreed and reversed resopndent's conviction. Issue: Supreme Court granted certiorari. Did the admission of Dr. Jambura's testimony (under Idaho's residual exception) with respect to statements made by the younger daughter, violate the confrontation clause? Holding: Dr. Jambura's testimony should not have been admitted: o "Viewing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the younger daughter's response to Jamb...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online