conducts hearing in Kansas

1971The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra [ 197 Kan. 651 , 421 P. 2d 33 ], where it is held: ‘Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.’ (Syl. f 1.)” (pp. 307, 308.) In the instant case a similar instruction, without objection, was given by the trial court, thereby submitting to the jury for de

1971The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra [ 197 Kan. 651 , 421 P. 2d 33 ], where it is held: ‘Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.’ (Syl. f 1.)” (pp. 307, 308.) In the instant case a similar instruction, without objection, was given by the trial court, thereby submitting to the jury for de

2019Redding , 309 Kan. at ----, 444 P.3d 989 , slip op. at 10 ; see Stewart , 309 Kan. at ----, Syl. ¶ 2, 444 P.3d 955 ("[I]f the court conducts a hearing [on a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion] at which the State will be represented by counsel, due process of law requires that the movant be represented by counsel unless the movant waives that right to counsel.").

2008Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 .

2008Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 , 98 S.Ct. 2674 .

1994We find no error.” (Emphasis added.) 570 N.E.2d at 87 .

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1977(State v. Thompson & Pennington, 221 Kan. 165, 169 , 558 P.2d 1079 ; State v. Kanive, 221 Kan. 34, 38-39 , 558 P.2d 1075 ; State v. Law, 214 Kan. 643 , 522 P.2d 320 .) In a criminal case there is a presumption of sanity and if the accused attacks the voluntariness of his confession on the ground of mental incompetency at the time the confession was given it is *228 incumbent on the accused to overcome the presumption by substantial competent evidence to substantiate his claim.

1968The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra, where it is held: “Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.” (Syl. f 1.) See, also, State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505 , 322 P. 2d 767 , and State v. Demain, 127 Kan. 716 , 275 Pac. 139 .

1968The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra, where it is held: “Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.” (Syl. f 1.) See, also, State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505 , 322 P. 2d 767 , and State v. Demain, 127 Kan. 716 , 275 Pac. 139 .

1968In his contentions presented on this point, defendant includes an argument that an identification by the complaining witness at the filling station, immediately following his arrest, constituted a “lineup” and violates the lineup rule laid down in Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 , 18 L.

1968In his contentions presented on this point, defendant includes an argument that an identification by the complaining witness at the filling station, immediately following his arrest, constituted a “lineup” and violates the lineup rule laid down in Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 , 18 L.

1968The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra, where it is held: “Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.” (Syl. f 1.) See, also, State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505 , 322 P. 2d 767 , and State v. Demain, 127 Kan. 716 , 275 Pac. 139 .

1968The applicable rule is found in State v. Jenkins, supra, where it is held: “Where the trial court conducts a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine the admissibility of defendant’s written statement, the determination that the statement was voluntarily made, is entitled to the weight commonly accorded findings of trial courts and if supported by competent evidence will not be disturbed on appeal.” (Syl. f 1.) See, also, State v. Robinson, 182 Kan. 505 , 322 P. 2d 767 , and State v. Demain, 127 Kan. 716 , 275 Pac. 139 .