State v. Noah (2007)
green
· 51 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 11 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2023)
See State v. Blue, 717 N.W.2d 558, 566 (N.D. 2006) (“A witness’s mere appearance at a preliminary hearing is not an adequate opportunity for cross-examination for purposes under the Confrontation Clause.”); In re Personal Restraint of Grasso, 84 P.3d 859, 868 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (finding that the admission of a child victim’s hearsay statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant “enjoyed the opportunity for full cross-examination about the alle…
Davis, J., concurring
green
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2023)
See State v. Blue, 717 N.W.2d 558, 566 (N.D. 2006) (“A witness’s mere appearance at a preliminary hearing is not an adequate opportunity for cross-examination for purposes under the Confrontation Clause.”); In re Personal Restraint of Grasso, 84 P.3d 859, 868 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (finding that the admission of a child victim’s hearsay statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant “enjoyed the opportunity for full cross-examination about the alle…
Davis, J., concurring
green
Dilliraj Bista v. Commonwealth of Virginia (2022)
See State v. Blue, 717 N.W.2d 558, 566 (N.D. 2006) (“A witness’s mere appearance at a preliminary hearing is not an adequate opportunity for cross-examination for purposes under the Confrontation Clause.”); In re Personal Restraint of Grasso, 84 P.3d 859, 868 (Wash. 2004) (en banc) (finding that the admission of a child victim’s hearsay statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the defendant “enjoyed the opportunity for full cross-examination about the alle…
Davis, J., concurring
green
Fischer v. State (2009)
See State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007).
green
State v. Bliss (2021)
Friday, 297 Kan. 1023 , Syl. ¶ 19; see also State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 5, 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (Confrontation Clause "guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish").
Confrontation Clause "guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish"
green
State v. Hatfield (2021)
State v. Friday, 297 Kan. 1023 , Syl. ¶ 19, 306 P.3d 265 (2013); see also State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608 , Syl. ¶ 5, 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (Confrontation Clause "guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish").
Confrontation Clause "guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish"
green
State v. Holman (2012)
Ask your next question.” “The scope of cross-examination is subject to reasonable control by the trial court.” State v. Corbett, 281 Kan. 294 , Syl. ¶ 4, 130 P.3d 1179 (2006); see State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 616-17 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (articulating the test used to determine whether the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixdi Amendment to tire United States Constitution in limiting cross-examination of a complaining witness).
articulating the test used to determine whether the trial court violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixdi Amendment to tire United States Constitution in limiting cross-examination of a complaining witness
green
State v. Anderson (2012)
See, e.g., State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 612 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (reviewing issues pertaining to Confrontation Clause de novo); In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155, 162 , 159 P.3d 974 (2007) (considering whether due process was violated is reviewed de novo).
reviewing issues pertaining to Confrontation Clause de novo
green
State v. Miller (2011)
Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 ; see State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 622 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (Davis, J., concurring) (“If a court determines that these other statements are testimonial hearsay, the statements are inadmissible under Crawford and [Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 , 126 S. Ct. 2266 , 165 L.
Davis, J., concurring
green
State v. Johnson (2010)
See, e.g., State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 616 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007) (the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination).
the Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination
green
State v. Wilson (2021)
See Noah, 284 Kan. at 617-19 .