conducted hearing in Kansas

2026Gray did not appeal." Gray, 2011 WL 4035802, at *1 .

2007To illustrate, in Sharp v. Commonwealth, 849 S.W.2d 542 (Ky. 1993), the trial court conducted a hearing in chambers after the defendant moved for a mistrial on the basis that a courtroom bystander had been gesturing and signaling to a child witness during the child’s testimony.

2006The court noted that a single act of violence — firing a shot — -was used to establish the bodily harm element of aggravated robbery and was “the same fact necessary for proof of the great bodily harm element of aggravated battery.” 266 Kan. at 257 .

2006Then, without explanation as to why it was doing so, the court conducted an analysis of the “traditional multiplicity test, as set forth in State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981).” Warren, 252 Kan. at 181 .

2006Then, without explanation as to why it was doing so, the court conducted an analysis of the “traditional multiplicity test, as set forth in State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981).” Warren, 252 Kan. at 181 .

2006Then, without explanation as to why it was doing so, the court conducted an analysis of the “traditional multiplicity test, as set forth in State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981).” Warren, 252 Kan. at 181 .

2003The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion “to determine whether to proceed with retrial or whether a retrial was barred by double jeopardy.” 30 Kan.

2003The district court essentially rejected the possibility of a safety stop under State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 823 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), and evaluated the detention as an investigatory stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.

2003The district court essentially rejected the possibility of a safety stop under State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 823 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), and evaluated the detention as an investigatory stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.

2003The district court essentially rejected the possibility of a safety stop under State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 823 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), and evaluated the detention as an investigatory stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.

2003The district court essentially rejected the possibility of a safety stop under State v. Vistuba, 251 Kan. 821, 823 , 840 P.2d 511 (1992), and evaluated the detention as an investigatory stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 20 L.

1993In State v. Nguyen, 251 Kan. at 75 , the Supreme Court stated the applicable standard of review, as quoted from State v. Zuniga: “When a trial court conducts a full . . . hearing on the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement by an accused, determines the statement was freely, voluntarily and knowingly given, and admits the statement into evidence at the trial, the appellate court should accept that determination if it is supported by substantial competent evidence.” In this case, the trial court held that the defendant’s statements were admissible because he had been fully informed of his

1992“K.S.A. 60-455 does not require that the defendant be convicted of the crime or civil wrong at issue.” State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 739 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990).

1992“K.S.A. 60-455 does not require that the defendant be convicted of the crime or civil wrong at issue.” State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 739 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990).

1982As pointed out by Mr. Justice Kaul in State v. Johnson, 210 Kan. 288 , 502 P.2d 802 : “ ‘The quality of sameness is important when pondering the admission of other crimes to prove identity.’ ” (p. 294.) (Emphasis supplied.) “To prove identity it is necessary to introduce evidence of the underlying facts and circumstances to show that the crimes were committed in a similar manner so as to raise a reasonable inference that the person who committed one crime committed the other.” Before evidence of the defendant’s rape conviction was admitted into evidence, the trial court conducted a hearing pur

1982As pointed out by Mr. Justice Kaul in State v. Johnson, 210 Kan. 288 , 502 P.2d 802 : “ ‘The quality of sameness is important when pondering the admission of other crimes to prove identity.’ ” (p. 294.) (Emphasis supplied.) “To prove identity it is necessary to introduce evidence of the underlying facts and circumstances to show that the crimes were committed in a similar manner so as to raise a reasonable inference that the person who committed one crime committed the other.” Before evidence of the defendant’s rape conviction was admitted into evidence, the trial court conducted a hearing pur

1971Before exploring this aspect of appellant’s contention we note that, prior to admitting Agent Klingenberg’s testimony into evidence, the court conducted a hearing on its admissibility outside the presence of the jury, as required by State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 , and Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 12 L.

1971Before exploring this aspect of appellant’s contention we note that, prior to admitting Agent Klingenberg’s testimony into evidence, the court conducted a hearing on its admissibility outside the presence of the jury, as required by State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 , and Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 12 L.

1971Before exploring this aspect of appellant’s contention we note that, prior to admitting Agent Klingenberg’s testimony into evidence, the court conducted a hearing on its admissibility outside the presence of the jury, as required by State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 , and Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 12 L.

1971Before exploring this aspect of appellant’s contention we note that, prior to admitting Agent Klingenberg’s testimony into evidence, the court conducted a hearing on its admissibility outside the presence of the jury, as required by State v. Milow, 199 Kan. 576 , 433 P. 2d 538 , and Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 , 12 L.

1965The trial court conducted a hearing in the absence of the jury, as required by State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136 , 181 P. 2d 478 , and determined that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.

1965The trial court conducted a hearing in the absence of the jury, as required by State v. Seward, 163 Kan. 136 , 181 P. 2d 478 , and determined that the confession was freely and voluntarily made.

1948In the latter case, in a mandamus action brought after the ruling of the contest board, it was charged that the action of the contest board was corrupt, amounting to fraud, and upon that question the court conducted a hearing, upon which an opinion was written ( 69 Kan. 877 , 77 Pac. 1133 ), in which it found there was no evidence of fraud.

1948In the latter case, in a mandamus action brought after the ruling of the contest board, it was charged that the action of the contest board was corrupt, amounting to fraud, and upon that question the court conducted a hearing, upon which an opinion was written ( 69 Kan. 877 , 77 Pac. 1133 ), in which it found there was no evidence of fraud.

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .

1948The statute was again considered and sustained in Griffin v. Gesner, 78 Kan. 669 , 97 Pac. 794 ; Hay v. Keeshan, 83 Kan. 438 , 111 Pac. 436 ; and in Thompson v. Pettijohn, 107 Kan. 548 , 192 Pac. 749 .