Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Engelhardtgreen2 sentences2011Specifically, in Richmond we refused to allow the defendant to object on one ground at trial and then argue another on appeal. 289 Kan. at 428-30, 212 P.3d 165 ; see State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 127 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). 2011Specifically, in Richmond we refused to allow the defendant to object on one ground at trial and then argue another on appeal. 289 Kan. at 428-30, 212 P.3d 165 ; see State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 127 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Richmondgreen2 sentences2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th 2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th | 1 | 17 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th 2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dukesgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) ("Recently, we stated that 'the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error.' Specifically, in Richmond we refused to allow the defendant to object on one ground at trial and then argue another on appeal. [Citation omitted.]"). 2021See State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 488 , 231 P.3d 558 (2010) ("Recently, we stated that 'the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether the evidence should be admitted and therefore reduce the chances of reversible error.' Specifically, in Richmond we refused to allow the defendant to object on one ground at trial and then argue another on appeal. [Citation omitted.]"). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hollingsworth
green
2 sentences2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th 2025And the district court overruled Newborn's objection, understanding that he was objecting to lack of foundation. 25 Our Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence at trial: "'"The purpose of the rule requiring a timely and specific objection is to give '"the trial court the opportunity to conduct the trial without using the tainted evidence, and thus avoid possible reversal and a new trial."' [Citation omitted.]"'" In short, the trial court must be provided the specific objection so it may consider as fully as possible whether th | 2 | 2022–2025 |
State v. McCaslin
green
2 sentences2024The purpose of K.S.A. 60-404's rule is to allow the district court the opportunity to consider whether the evidence should be admitted and to prevent the jury from hearing tainted or inadmissible evidence, reducing the chances of reversible error and a new trial. 2014 WL 3731928 , at *6 (citing State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 707 , 245 P.3d 1030 [2011]). 2024The purpose of K.S.A. 60-404's rule is to allow the district court the opportunity to consider whether the evidence should be admitted and to prevent the jury from hearing tainted or inadmissible evidence, reducing the chances of reversible error and a new trial. 2014 WL 3731928 , at *6 (citing State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 707 , 245 P.3d 1030 [2011]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Becker
green
2 sentences2011The more recent decision in State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 , 235 P.3d 424 (2010), does not support Everest’s claim to an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. 2011The more recent decision in State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 , 235 P.3d 424 (2010), does not support Everest’s claim to an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2009Second, even were we to overlook the failure to object on this particular ground, we reject Richmond’s argument that here “ ‘the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and which is finally determinative of the case.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Stevens, 278 Kan. at 454 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.