From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Camm v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
908 N.E.2d 215 (2009)
David Camm (defendant) was tried for killing his wife, Kim Camm, and their two children. At trial, David’s alibi was a contested issue. David claimed he was playing basketball at the time of the murders, which occurred at around 7:30 pm. However, Cindy Mattingly testified that she spoke to Kim on the morning of the murders. According to Mattingly, Kim had said that she expected David to be home between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. that night, although she did not tell Mattingly why she believed that. This evidence was admitted to show that David’s alibi might be false. David was convicted of the murders and appealed. On appeal, David argued that Kim’s statement about when she expected him home was hearsay and did not qualify for any exception.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Dickson, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 540,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 540,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.