11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2024 2 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. Castanedagreen2 sentences2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W. 2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 696 , 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is ‘uniformly considered’ a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Dennis, 2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den | 2 | 2 |
Conner v. Stategreen2 sentences2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W. 2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 696 , 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is ‘uniformly considered’ a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Dennis, 2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W. 2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 696 , 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is ‘uniformly considered’ a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Dennis, 2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rowegreen2 sentences2017This rule is subject to a number of exceptions, including the firmly-rooted excited utterance exception, which "allows a hearsay statement to be introduced to prove the truth of the matter when the statement was made under the stress of nervous excitement caused by such perception." State v. Bryant, 272 Kan. 1204, 1209 , 38 P.3d 661 (2002); see K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-460(d)(2). 24 In State v. Rowe, 252 Kan. 243 , 843 P.2d 714 (1992), we outlined the requirements for admitting a statement under the excited utterance exception: "'1. 2017This rule is subject to a number of exceptions, including the firmly-rooted excited utterance exception, which "allows a hearsay statement to be introduced to prove the truth of the matter when the statement was made under the stress of nervous excitement caused by such perception." State v. Bryant, 272 Kan. 1204, 1209 , 38 P.3d 661 (2002); see K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-460(d)(2). 24 In State v. Rowe, 252 Kan. 243 , 843 P.2d 714 (1992), we outlined the requirements for admitting a statement under the excited utterance exception: "'1. | 1 | 3 |
Cooke v. Gillespiegreen2 sentences2021See Cooke v. Gillespie, 285 Kan. 748, 755 , 176 P.3d 144 (2008) ("We have clearly held that before an appellee may present adverse rulings to the appellate court it must file a cross-appeal."). 2021See Cooke v. Gillespie, 285 Kan. 748, 755 , 176 P.3d 144 (2008) ("We have clearly held that before an appellee may present adverse rulings to the appellate court it must file a cross-appeal."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warledogreen2 sentences2021See State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 938 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (because State's argument that testimony was admissible under the excited utterance exception was being raised for the first time on appeal, the court declined to address the issue). 2021See State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 938 , 190 P.3d 937 (2008) (because State's argument that testimony was admissible under the excited utterance exception was being raised for the first time on appeal, the court declined to address the issue). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2008See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 594 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (issue not briefed deemed waived or abandoned). 2008See State v. Walker, 283 Kan. 587, 594 , 153 P.3d 1257 (2007) (issue not briefed deemed waived or abandoned). | 1 | 1 |
Pugh v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2002See Pugh v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 663 , 292 S.E.2d 339 (1982) (finding a father’s statement of “Oh, no, not again,” made after learning of his daughter’s death, was prompted by sufficiently startling circumstances to qualify for the excited utterance exception). 2002See Pugh v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 663 , 292 S.E.2d 339 (1982) (finding a father’s statement of “Oh, no, not again,” made after learning of his daughter’s death, was prompted by sufficiently startling circumstances to qualify for the excited utterance exception). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2024"Time is not the indicia of reliability underlying the excited utterance exception; rather the sense of excitement or stress that vitiates the opportunity for reflection makes the statement spontaneous and reliable." 285 Kan. at 295 . 2017For example, in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 296 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007), we held the excited utterance exception did not apply because of the precise problem here—a lack of evidence regarding the surrounding context. | 2 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Bryant
green
2 sentences2017This rule is subject to a number of exceptions, including the firmly-rooted excited utterance exception, which "allows a hearsay statement to be introduced to prove the truth of the matter when the statement was made under the stress of nervous excitement caused by such perception." State v. Bryant, 272 Kan. 1204, 1209 , 38 P.3d 661 (2002); see K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-460(d)(2). 24 In State v. Rowe, 252 Kan. 243 , 843 P.2d 714 (1992), we outlined the requirements for admitting a statement under the excited utterance exception: "'1. 2017This rule is subject to a number of exceptions, including the firmly-rooted excited utterance exception, which "allows a hearsay statement to be introduced to prove the truth of the matter when the statement was made under the stress of nervous excitement caused by such perception." State v. Bryant, 272 Kan. 1204, 1209 , 38 P.3d 661 (2002); see K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-460(d)(2). 24 In State v. Rowe, 252 Kan. 243 , 843 P.2d 714 (1992), we outlined the requirements for admitting a statement under the excited utterance exception: "'1. | 2 | 2008–2017 |
State v. Dennis
green
2 sentences2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den 2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den | 2 | 2001–2002 |
State v. Salgado
green
2 sentences2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W. 2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 N.M. 691, 696 , 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is ‘uniformly considered’ a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Dennis, 2002See Conner v. State, 748 So.2d 950, 956 (Fla. 1999) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exceptions); State v. Castaneda, 621 N.W.2d 435, 445 (Iowa 2001) (excited utterance is one of several firmly rooted hearsay exception); State v. Gates, 615 N.W.2d 331, 336-37 (Minn. 2000) (excited utterance is firmly rooted hearsay exception satisfying constitutional requirements); State v. Salgado, 126 *1210 N.M. 691, 696, 974 P.2d 661 (1999) (excited utterance is `uniformly considered' a firmly rooted hearsay exception and comports to Confrontation Clause requirements); State v. Den | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Michigan v. Bryant
green
1 sentence2011In a footnote, the Court observed there were other hearsay exceptions which “similarly rest on the belief that certain statements are, by their nature, made for a purpose other than use in a prosecution and therefore should not be barred by hearsay prohibitions.” Bryant, 562 U.S. at 362 n.9. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2008In Bryant , this court held that although the trial court was wrong to admit the evidence under the res gestae exception, it was nonetheless admissible under the excited utterance exception. 272 Kan. at 1210 , 38 P.3d 661 (citing State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627, 634 , 984 P.2d 132 [1999]). 2008In Bryant , this court held that although the trial court was wrong to admit the evidence under the res gestae exception, it was nonetheless admissible under the excited utterance exception. 272 Kan. at 1210 , 38 P.3d 661 (citing State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627, 634 , 984 P.2d 132 [1999]). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Deal
green
2 sentences2002Recently this court in State v. Deal, 271 Kan. 483, 500 , 23 P.3d 840 (2001), held that the excited utterance exception under 60-460(d) is a firmly rooted hearsay exception; reliability may be inferred without any further showing. 2002Recently this court in State v. Deal, 271 Kan. 483, 500 , 23 P.3d 840 (2001), held that the excited utterance exception under 60-460(d) is a firmly rooted hearsay exception; reliability may be inferred without any further showing. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2002Lisa cites State v. Walker, 28 Kan. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Todd
neutral
1 sentence2000The fact that the trial court may not have based its decision on this rationale is not pertinent. “ ‘A trial court’s decision which reaches the right result will be upheld, even though the trial court may have relied upon the wrong ground or assigned erroneous reasons for its decision.’ ” Todd, 24 Kan. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.