{"id":2629,"date":"2017-06-27T15:11:21","date_gmt":"2017-06-27T19:11:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revistajuridica.uprrp.edu\/?p=2629"},"modified":"2017-06-27T15:11:21","modified_gmt":"2017-06-27T19:11:21","slug":"derecho-probatorio-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/2017\/06\/27\/derecho-probatorio-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Derecho Probatorio"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify\">La decana de la Escuela de Derecho de la UPR, Vivian Neptune Rivera analiza, a ra\u00edz de lo resuelto en <em>Pueblo v. P\u00e9rez Santos<\/em>, la Regla 805 (B) de Evidencia con su excepci\u00f3n a la regla de exclusi\u00f3n de la prueba de referencia por tratarse de una declaraci\u00f3n por excitaci\u00f3n y su aplicaci\u00f3n a la cl\u00e1usula residual de la Regla 809. En este caso estaba en controversia si las declaraciones de una menor, que falleci\u00f3 v\u00edctima de abuso f\u00edsico por el acusado, constitu\u00edan una declaraci\u00f3n testimonial o no. El Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico adopt\u00f3 la norma vigente de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en <em>Ohio v. Clark, <\/em>la cual estableci\u00f3 que era una declaraci\u00f3n no testimonial al ser un evento excitante de naturaleza continua y\/o emergencia viva. Coincide la autora con la determinaci\u00f3n del Tribunal Supremo, aunque entiende que este desaprovech\u00f3 la oportunidad de resolver el presente caso por v\u00eda de la cl\u00e1usula residual. A su vez, resalta que la decisi\u00f3n se circunscribe al patr\u00f3n de maltrato que recibi\u00f3 la menor con el fin de evitar y admitir las declaraciones espont\u00e1neas cuando no exista una emergencia viva.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify\">Our Law School\u2019s Dean, Vivian Neptune Rivera analyzes <em>Pueblo v. P\u00e9rez Santos<\/em> which dealt with the Evidence Rule 805 (B) -the exception of the exclusion rule from the hearsay evidence for incitement declaration- and the corresponding application of residual clause from the Rule 809. The issue at hand in the aforementioned case is whether the declarations of the minor, who was victim of fiscal abuse that caused the child\u2019s death, constitute a testimony or not. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court adopted the precedent established by Supreme Court of the United States in <em>Ohio v. Clark,<\/em> which held that the declarations of the child were not a testimony because it was an event of constant incitement and an ongoing emergency. The author concurs with the decision of the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. However, she points out that the Court missed the opportunity to resolve the case by applying the residual clause. The author also emphasizes that the decision was limited by the pattern of mistreatment, which the child was a victim of, for the purpose of evading the fact that a spontaneous declaration does not constitute an ongoing emergency.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Cita:<\/strong> Vivian Neptune Rivera, <em>Derecho Probatorio<\/em>, 86 Rev. Jur. UPR 531\u00a0(2017).<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"http:\/\/revistajuridica.uprrp.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/03-Derecho-Probatorio-FINAL.pdf\">Enlace PDF (+)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Vivian Neptune Rivera, 86 Rev. Jur. UPR 531 (2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[79],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-2629","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-volumen-86-num-2"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/derecho.uprrp.edu\/revistajuridica\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}