Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hallums v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 12, 2004No. 98-CM-1354Published

1ConcurrenceGlickman, Associate Judge

I would hold that the trial judge did not err, constitutionally or otherwise, in admitting Officer Lee’s identification of appellant.

Officer Lee was with Officer Barriek when they saw a woman enter Lord & Taylor and begin removing Coach handbags from a counter top display. According to Officer Barriek, Officer Lee “immediately” declared, “That’s Theresa Hallums.” In my view, Officer Lee’s declaration was a statement of “present sense impression” as defined in Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1): “A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  4. White v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  5. Lilly v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

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

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

Powered by the Exa API