State v. Lopez-Ramos
Supreme Court of Minnesota
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
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Melendez-Diaz v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bullcoming v. New MexicoSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- 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
- State v. MartinezNebraska Supreme Court · 2020
- Cortez-Rivas v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 2022