State v. Marsh, 144 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Marsh, 144 P.3d 48 (Kan. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“we begin by observing that there is a heightened scrutiny of trial proceedings in a capital case.”
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007 2016 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Carr
Kan. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we begin by observing that there is a heightened scrutiny of trial proceedings in a capital case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Cosby
Kan. · 2011 · confidence medium
For example, [State v.] Gunby [, 282 Kan. 38 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006),] explained that when the ‘legal basis’ of the district court’s decision is raised on appeal, appellate courts review such questions de novo. 282 Kan. at 47-48.
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Garcia (8×) also: Cited "see"
Kan. · 2007 · confidence medium
Gunby further explained our possible standards of review: “Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question. [Citation omitted.] When the adequacy of the legal basis of a district judge’s decision on admission or exclusion of evidence is questioned, we review the decision de novo.” 282 Kan. at 47-48.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Scott (2×)
Kan. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Ed. 2d 429 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 (2006); see Kansas Supreme Court’s supplemental opinion to State v. Marsh, 282 Kan. 38 , 144 P.3d 48 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Michael Lee Marsh, II, Appellant
81,135.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
Oct 18, 2006.
144 P.3d 48
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 59%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Kansas (1)
Per Curiam:

In State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 102 P.3d 445 (2004), we affirmed appellant’s convictions and sentences for first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated burglary. We reversed appellant’s convictions for capital murder and aggravated arson after holding the trial court committed reversible error by excluding circumstantial evidence connecting a third party, the victim’s husband, to the crimes. A majority of the court also held that the weighing equation, K.S.A. 21-4624(e), was unconstitutional on its face under tire Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States granted appellee’s petition for writ of certiorari, 544 U.S. 1060, 161 L. Ed. 2d 1109, 125 S. Ct. 2517 (2005), and later reversed this court’s holding that K.S.A. 21-4624(e) is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163, 165 L. Ed. 2d 429, 126 S. Ct. 2516 (2006).

That part of our decision in State v. Marsh which held K.S.A. 21-4624(e) unconstitutional under tire Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution is hereby vacated. Our decision in Marsh reversing appellant’s convictions for capital murder and aggravated arson and affirming appellant’s convictions and sentences for first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated burglary remains unchanged. The case is remanded with directions to grant appellant a new trial on the capital murder and aggravated arson charges.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.