declarant hearing in Kansas

10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2009 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Myersgreen kan · 1981 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 1 sentence 1994See Myers, 229 Kan. at 173 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Bird green kan · 1985 2 sentences 1993The trial court overruled Schultz’ objection, finding that Seltmann’s statements were admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-460(i), which provides; “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if . . . (2) the party and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or a civil wrong and the statement was relevant to the plan or its subject matter and was made while the plan was in existence and before its complete execution or other termination.” In State v. Bird, 238 Kan. 160, 1993The trial court overruled Schultz’ objection, finding that Seltmann’s statements were admissible under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 60-460(i), which provides; “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if . . . (2) the party and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or a civil wrong and the statement was relevant to the plan or its subject matter and was made while the plan was in existence and before its complete execution or other termination.” In State v. Bird, 238 Kan. 160,	2	1993–2009
State v. Fisher green kan · 1977 2 sentences 2009However, the court stated, “[I]n our view, calling a declarant as a defense witness is no substitute for cross-examining that declarant as a state’s witness.” 222 Kan. at 81 . 1977However, State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76 , 563 P.2d 1012 , makes it clear that “calling a declarant as a defense witness is no substitute for cross-examining that declarant as a state’s witness.” (p. 81.) In Fisher , the witness was physically present in the courtroom but admission of her out-of-court statements was held to be reversible error, the court saying: “Admission of a declarant’s out-of-court statement does not violate the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section Ten of the Bill of Rights of the Kansas Constitution as long as	2	1977–2009
Crawford v. Washington green scotus · 2004 1 sentence 2006In Crawford v. Washington, the Court held that out-of-court statements by witnesses that are testimonial are barred under the Confrontation Clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine regardless of whether such statements are deemed reliable by the court. 541 U.S. at 68 .	1	2006–2006
State v. Schultz green kan · 1993 2 sentences 1995State v. Schultz, 252 Kan. 819, 842 , 850 P.2d 818 (1993). 1995State v. Schultz, 252 Kan. 819, 842 , 850 P.2d 818 (1993).	1	1995–1995
State v. Sherry green kan · 1983 2 sentences 1995State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920, 934 , 667 P.2d 367 (1983). 1995State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920, 934 , 667 P.2d 367 (1983).	1	1995–1995
Schlatter v. Ibarra green kan · 1975 2 sentences 1984As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship ....’’ (Emphasis supplied.) In Schlatter v. Ibarra, 218 Kan. 67 , 542 P.2d 710 (1975), this court had an opportunity to consider K.S.A. 60-460(i)(l). 1984As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship ....’’ (Emphasis supplied.) In Schlatter v. Ibarra, 218 Kan. 67 , 542 P.2d 710 (1975), this court had an opportunity to consider K.S.A. 60-460(i)(l).	1	1984–1984
State v. Rider, Edens & Lemons green kan · 1981 2 sentences 1982A. Five thousand dollars, and he gave me some money then, and gave me a key to the building, told me to get a key made, and get the original back to him, because he had to give it back to Larry pretty quick.” This statement was admitted under K.S.A. 60-460(i), which provides: “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship, or (2) the party and the declarant were participati 1982A. Five thousand dollars, and he gave me some money then, and gave me a key to the building, told me to get a key made, and get the original back to him, because he had to give it back to Larry pretty quick.” This statement was admitted under K.S.A. 60-460(i), which provides: “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship, or (2) the party and the declarant were participati	1	1982–1982
State v. Roberts green kan · 1977 2 sentences 1982A. Five thousand dollars, and he gave me some money then, and gave me a key to the building, told me to get a key made, and get the original back to him, because he had to give it back to Larry pretty quick.” This statement was admitted under K.S.A. 60-460(i), which provides: “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship, or (2) the party and the declarant were participati 1982A. Five thousand dollars, and he gave me some money then, and gave me a key to the building, told me to get a key made, and get the original back to him, because he had to give it back to Larry pretty quick.” This statement was admitted under K.S.A. 60-460(i), which provides: “As against a party, a statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing if (1) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of an agency or employment of the declarant for the party and was made before the termination of such relationship, or (2) the party and the declarant were participati	1	1982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (10) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NY 13 (1986–2025) IL 11 (1977–2023) KS 10 (1977–2009) NJ 7 (1971–2018) CA 3 (1977–2013) CT 3 (1980–2008) TX 2 (2001–2024) PA 2 (2002–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check