11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 0 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. Saenzgreen2 sentences2020In State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court considered five factors, as set out in State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 354 , 22 P.3d 151 (2001), to determine whether there was a question about the reliability of the eyewitness identification. 2020In State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court considered five factors, as set out in State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 354 , 22 P.3d 151 (2001), to determine whether there was a question about the reliability of the eyewitness identification. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gainesgreen2 sentences2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). 2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carrgreen2 sentences2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). 2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Divinegreen2 sentences2012See State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011) (a defendant may not invite error and then complain of the error on appeal). 2012See State v. Divine, 291 Kan. 738, 742 , 246 P.3d 692 (2011) (a defendant may not invite error and then complain of the error on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Corbettgreen2 sentences2011See Corbett, 281 Kan. at 304-05 , 130 P.3d 1179 ; Hunt, 275 Kan. at 817-18 , 69 P.3d 571 . 2011See Corbett, 281 Kan. at 304-05 , 130 P.3d 1179 ; Hunt, 275 Kan. at 817-18 , 69 P.3d 571 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Calvingreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. at 206-07 (concluding that the witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant who had been to the witness’ house on at least 20 occasions to purchase drugs from the witness’ brother); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. at 678-79 (concluding the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was not clearly erroneous because the witness knew the defendant); State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. at 353-54 (finding no error in failing to give the instruction because the witness knew the defendant). ““ “Where the witness personally knows the individual being identified, the cauti 2006See, e.g., State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. at 206-07 (concluding that the witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant who had been to the witness’ house on at least 20 occasions to purchase drugs from the witness’ brother); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. at 678-79 (concluding the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was not clearly erroneous because the witness knew the defendant); State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. at 353-54 (finding no error in failing to give the instruction because the witness knew the defendant). ““ “Where the witness personally knows the individual being identified, the cauti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Manngreen2 sentences2006See, e.g., State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. at 206-07 (concluding that the witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant who had been to the witness’ house on at least 20 occasions to purchase drugs from the witness’ brother); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. at 678-79 (concluding the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was not clearly erroneous because the witness knew the defendant); State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. at 353-54 (finding no error in failing to give the instruction because the witness knew the defendant). ““ “Where the witness personally knows the individual being identified, the cauti 2006See, e.g., State v. Calvin, 279 Kan. at 206-07 (concluding that the witness was sufficiently familiar with the defendant who had been to the witness’ house on at least 20 occasions to purchase drugs from the witness’ brother); State v. Mann, 274 Kan. at 678-79 (concluding the trial court’s failure to give the instruction was not clearly erroneous because the witness knew the defendant); State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. at 353-54 (finding no error in failing to give the instruction because the witness knew the defendant). ““ “Where the witness personally knows the individual being identified, the cauti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004) (requiring the court to evaluate a requested instruction in a light most favorable to the defendant). 2006See State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004) (requiring the court to evaluate a requested instruction in a light most favorable to the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
State v. MacKgreen2 sentences1999Here, the State need only present evidence of probable cause; evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. 266 Kan. at 290 ; see also State v. Mack, 255 Kan. 21, 27-28 , 871 P.2d 1265 (1994) (discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress). 1999Here, the State need only present evidence of probable cause; evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. 266 Kan. at 290 ; see also State v. Mack, 255 Kan. 21, 27-28 , 871 P.2d 1265 (1994) (discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress). | 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. Warren
green
2 sentences2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). 2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). | 2 | 2006–2015 |
State v. Hunt
green
2 sentences2006Trotter now relies on State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811 , 69 P.3d 571 (2003), for the proposition that the court must give an eyewitness identification instruction if identification is a central issue in the case. 2006Trotter now relies on State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811 , 69 P.3d 571 (2003), for the proposition that the court must give an eyewitness identification instruction if identification is a central issue in the case. | 2 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Thurber
green
1 sentence2020On appeal, the State argues that State v. Thurber, 308 Kan. 140 , 198-99, 420 P.3d 389 (2018), precluded giving an eyewitness identification instruction precisely because other evidence pointed toward Lopez' guilt. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Ho K. Duong
green
2 sentences2020In State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court considered five factors, as set out in State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 354 , 22 P.3d 151 (2001), to determine whether there was a question about the reliability of the eyewitness identification. 2020In State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011), the Kansas Supreme Court considered five factors, as set out in State v. Saenz, 271 Kan. 339, 354 , 22 P.3d 151 (2001), to determine whether there was a question about the reliability of the eyewitness identification. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Willis
green
2 sentences2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). 2015More specifically, Betancourt fails to acknowledge or discuss this court’s explicit statements indicating that an eyewitness identification instruction need only be given where “eyewitness identification is a critical part of the prosecution’s case and there is a serious question about the reliability of the identification.” State v. Warren, 230 Kan. 385, 397 , 635 P.2d 1236 (1981); see State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 758 , 926 P.2d 641 (1996) (same), overruled on other grounds by State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014); State v. Willis, 240 Kan. 580, 585 , 731 P.2d 287 (1987) (same). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2014Among those factors was, “[t]he degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused.” Based on our holding in State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. 469, 481 , 275 P.3d 905 (2012), the district court erred in submitting this language to the jury. 2014Among those factors was, “[t]he degree of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the time of any identification of the accused.” Based on our holding in State v. Mitchell, 294 Kan. 469, 481 , 275 P.3d 905 (2012), the district court erred in submitting this language to the jury. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Trammell
green
2 sentences2012In State v. Trammell, 278 Kan. 265 , 92 P.3d 1101 (2004), three witnesses identified the defendant from various photographic lineups, and the same eyewitness identification instruction at issue in Mitchell’s case was submitted to the juiy. 2012In State v. Trammell, 278 Kan. 265 , 92 P.3d 1101 (2004), three witnesses identified the defendant from various photographic lineups, and the same eyewitness identification instruction at issue in Mitchell’s case was submitted to the juiy. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Long
green
1 sentence2003The Utah court’s slight divergence from the federal analysis is based on its interpretation of the Utah Constitution and its holding in State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (requiring the use of an eyewitness identification instruction alerting the jury to five commonly accepted areas of concern for eyewitness identifications). 817 P.2d at 780 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence2003The Utah court’s slight divergence from the federal analysis is based on its interpretation of the Utah Constitution and its holding in State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (requiring the use of an eyewitness identification instruction alerting the jury to five commonly accepted areas of concern for eyewitness identifications). 817 P.2d at 780 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Powell
green
2 sentences1999Here, the State need only present evidence of probable cause; evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. 266 Kan. at 290 ; see also State v. Mack, 255 Kan. 21, 27-28 , 871 P.2d *535 1265 (1994) (discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress). 1999Here, the State need only present evidence of probable cause; evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. 266 Kan. at 290 ; see also State v. Mack, 255 Kan. 21, 27-28 , 871 P.2d 1265 (1994) (discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Simmons v. United States
green
2 sentences1994The first step of the eyewitness identification test established in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 19 L. 1994The first step of the eyewitness identification test established in Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 384 , 19 L. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.