State v. Spain (1998)
green
· 126 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199820122026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. Nelson (2010)
See State v. Jones, 283 Kan. 186, 216 , 151 P.3d 22 (2007) (reasonable doubt standard); Spain, 263 Kan. at 720 (preponderance of the evidence standard).
preponderance of the evidence standard
green
State v. Scott (2008)
See, e.g., State v. Brown, 272 Kan. 809, 818-22 , 37 P.3d 31 (2001) (occupant of house where victim bludgeoned to death); State v. Lopez, 271 Kan. 119, 139-40 , 22 P.3d 1040 (2001) (defendant shot at the driver of a moving vehicle in which another passenger was present); State v. Saiz, 269 Kan. 657, 667 , 7 P.3d 1214 (2000) (mother and brother of the victim were also shot at during a drive-by shooting which resulted in victim’s death); State v. Spain, 263 Kan. at 714-18 (aft…
after jail escape, defendant took hostage
green
State v. Gholston (2001)
State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 720, 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).
green
State v. Lessley (2001)
green
State v. Wakefield (1999)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 709 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).
green
State v. Ford (2019)
See State v. Spain , 263 Kan. 708 , 714, 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).
green
State v. Soto (2014)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 714 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances); see also State v. Nelson, 291 Kan. 475, 487-88 , 243 P.3d 343 (2010) (clarifying standard of proof for finding aggravating circumstances is preponderance of evidence rather than beyond reasonable doubt).
concluding that although K.S.A. 21-4635(c) specifies no particular standard of proof, statute implicitly requires judge to apply preponderance of evidence standard when finding aggravating circumstances
green
State v. Nelson (2010)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 720 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (The appellate standard of review is whether "after a review of all the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence.").
The appellate standard of review is whether "after a review of all the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, a rational factfinder could have found the existence of the aggravating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence."
green
State v. Moreno (2005)
Cf. United States v. Spedalieri, 910 F.2d 707, 712 (10th Cir.1990) (noting that “[t]he burden of proof is on the defendant” to show that he accepted responsibility for a criminal act); see also State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708 , 953 P.2d 1004, 1010 (1998) (stating “the implicit standard of proof for aggravating circumstances ... is preponderance of the evidence”).
stating “the implicit standard of proof for aggravating circumstances ... is preponderance of the evidence”
green
State v. Papen (2002)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708 , Syl. ¶ 6, 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).
green
ALG, INC. v. Estate of Eldred (2001)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 711 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998).
green
Mitchell v. Liberty Mutual Insurance (2001)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 711 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998) (when the legislature revises *697 an existing law, it is presumed that the legislature intended to change the law as it existed prior to the amendment).
when the legislature revises *697 an existing law, it is presumed that the legislature intended to change the law as it existed prior to the amendment
green
State v. Brown (2001)
See Spain, 263 Kan. at 716 .
green
State v. Bedford (2000)
See State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708 , Syl. § 6.
green
State v. Vontress (1998)
See *259 Spain, 263 Kan. at 716 .