11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 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. McCulloughgreen2 sentences2026Ed. 2d 638 (2019) ("An appeals court looks at the same factors as the trial judge, but is necessarily doing so on a paper record," so review of factual 13 determinations in a Batson hearing is "'highly deferential.'"); see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge."). 2026Ed. 2d 638 (2019) ("An appeals court looks at the same factors as the trial judge, but is necessarily doing so on a paper record," so review of factual 13 determinations in a Batson hearing is "'highly deferential.'"); see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge."). | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kettler
green
2 sentences2017As such, it falls within the trial court's province to decide, and that decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 461-62 , 325 P.3d 1075 (2014). 2017As such, it falls within the trial court's province to decide, and that decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 461-62 , 325 P.3d 1075 (2014). | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Davis
green
1 sentence2020In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege." Yet, the Davis court ultimately determined that the prosecutor's comment error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for the following reasons: (1) because the comment "amounted to two lines in an extended record of trial"; (2) because Davis immediately objected to the prose | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Searles
green
2 sentences2002The court then explained there was no error because although “the State did elicit the fact that at one point Searles stated he had nothing to say, the State did not comment on that assertion.” 246 Kan. at 574 . 2002In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable, inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege.” K.S.A. 60-439. *1252 The Searles court stated that K.S.A. 60-439 “is limited to a situation where a comment is made on a privilege in the trial where the privilege is asserted.” 246 Kan. at 574 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Beebe
green
2 sentences1994In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege.” We noted in State v. Beebe, 244 Kan. 48, 53 , 766 P.2d 158 (1988), that any comment on the defendant’s failure to testify is error “but is not per se reversible error.” In order to constitute reversible error, the comments must be prejudicial as well as improper. 1994In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege.” We noted in State v. Beebe, 244 Kan. 48, 53 , 766 P.2d 158 (1988), that any comment on the defendant’s failure to testify is error “but is not per se reversible error.” In order to constitute reversible error, the comments must be prejudicial as well as improper. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Nott
green
2 sentences1990In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege." State v. Nott, 234 Kan. 34 , 669 P.2d 660 (1983), states plainly that K.S.A. 60-439 is limited to a situation where a comment is made on a privilege in the trial where the privilege is asserted. 1990In those jury cases wherein the right to exercise a privilege, as herein provided, may be misunderstood and unfavorable inferences drawn by the trier of the fact, or may be impaired in the particular case, the court, at the request of the party exercising the privilege, may instruct the jury in support of such privilege." State v. Nott, 234 Kan. 34 , 669 P.2d 660 (1983), states plainly that K.S.A. 60-439 is limited to a situation where a comment is made on a privilege in the trial where the privilege is asserted. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Carlos Garza De Luna v. United States
green
1 sentence1982DeLuna v. United States, 308 F.2d 140 (5th Cir. 1962). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.