Idaho v. Wright

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Evidence

497 U.S. 805 (1990)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidenceresidual hearsayreliabilityConfrontation Clausehearsayresidual exceptionfirmly rooted hearsay exceptionparticularized guarantees of trustworthiness

Facts

Respondent was charged with lewd conduct involving her two young daughters. The younger daughter, who was three at trial, was found incapable of communicating to the jury, and the parties agreed she could not testify. Over objection, the trial court allowed a pediatrician, Dr. Jambura, to recount statements the younger daughter made during an office interview in response to his questions about whether her father touched her with his "pee-pee" and whether he did so more with her sister. The trial court admitted the statements under Idaho's residual hearsay exception, and respondent was convicted on the count involving the younger daughter.

Issue

Whether admission of a young child's hearsay statements to an examining pediatrician, admitted under a residual hearsay exception, violated the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause. More specifically, the question was whether those statements bore sufficient indicia of reliability through particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.

Rule

When hearsay is not admitted under a firmly rooted hearsay exception, the Confrontation Clause permits admission only if the statement is supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Those guarantees must be drawn from the totality of the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement and rendering the declarant particularly worthy of belief; corroborating evidence at trial cannot be used to establish the required trustworthiness. A residual hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception for Confrontation Clause purposes.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a criminal trial in Columbus, Ohio, the prosecution cannot call six-year-old Nora Bell because the judge finds she cannot communicate effectively with the jury. The prosecution offers Nora's out-of-court accusation to a child counselor under Ohio's residual hearsay exception, arguing that admission under that exception itself establishes reliability.

How should the court rule on the Confrontation Clause objection?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, a residual hearsay exception is not a firmly rooted hearsay exception for Confrontation Clause purposes. So reliability cannot be inferred merely from admission under that exception. The statement is presumptively unreliable and admissible only if the prosecution shows particularized guarantees of trustworthiness from the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement.