Legal Opinion

State v. Lopez-Ramos

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided June 12, 2019No. A17-0609PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

*415This case presents the questions of whether the admission of statements made by appellant using a foreign language interpreter violates the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution and hearsay rules. Because we conclude that the Confrontation Clause is not violated and the statements are not subject to the hearsay rules, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

FACTS

In May 2016, the State charged appellant Cesar Rosario Lopez-Ramos with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under Minn. Stat. § 609.342, subd. 1(a) (2018).1 Several days…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  4. Bullcoming v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  5. United States v. Jaleh NazemianCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. MartinezNebraska Supreme Court · 2020
  2. Cortez-Rivas v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API