Opinion ID: 2639002
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of hearsay testimony and the Confrontation Clause

Text: The district court in this case admitted the three hearsay statements under NRS 51.315(1), based upon Sylvia's unavailability and the court's findings that the statements were reliable. NRS 51.315(1) provides: A statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if: (a) Its nature and the special circumstances under which it was made offer strong assurances of accuracy; and (b) The declarant is unavailable as a witness. Sylvia was the only eyewitness to the events in question. Because the State presented Sylvia's account through surrogates, thus avoiding any cross-examination, and because the Confrontation Clause applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment under Pointer, the district court's ruling implicated Flores's confrontation rights under Roberts, which was the controlling precedent at the time of the ruling.