third-party evidence rule in Kansas

10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 1 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 (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Browngreen kan · 2007 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2009–2014 2 sentences 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret	3	4
State v. Marshgreen kan · 2004 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2014 2 sentences 2009In Marsh, our Supreme Court stated the third-party evidence rule as follows: “ “Where the State relies on direct rather than on circumstantial evidence for conviction, evidence offered by defendant to indicate a possible motive of someone other than the defendant to commit the crime is incompetent absent some other evidence to connect the third party with the crime.’ [Citation omitted.]” Marsh, 278 Kan. at 530 . 2007This court recently clarified the law relating to the third-party evidence rule in Marsh I, 278 Kan. 520 , and State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 (2005).	2	6
Kansas v. Marshgreen scotus · 2006 · cited in 5 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2011 2 sentences 2009Ed. 2d 429 , 126 S. Ct. 2516 (2006), for its discussion of the third-party evidence rule in Kansas. 2007Since Adams , the United States Supreme Court reversed Marsh Ts holding striking down Kansas’ death penalty statute, see Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 , but that portion of Marsh I clarifying the third-party evidence rule was not subject to review and remains good law.	2	5
State v. Adamsgreen kan · 2005 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2025 2 sentences 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]).	1	4
State v. Tahahgreen kan · 2011 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2025 2 sentences 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]). 2025But we review a district court's decision to exclude evidence based on the third- party evidence rule for abuse of discretion based on the "'totality of facts and circumstances in a given case.'" State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 274 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (quoting State v. Adams, 280 Kan. 494, 505 , 124 P.3d 19 [2005]).	1	2
State v. Carrgreen kan · 2014 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See also State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 197 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014) ("[T]he appellate standard of review for a district judge's ruling on a motion in limine invoking the third-party evidence rule is abuse of discretion."), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L. 2025See also State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 197 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014) ("[T]he appellate standard of review for a district judge's ruling on a motion in limine invoking the third-party evidence rule is abuse of discretion."), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.	1	1
Kansas v. Kansasgreen scotus · 2016 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025See also State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 197 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014) ("[T]he appellate standard of review for a district judge's ruling on a motion in limine invoking the third-party evidence rule is abuse of discretion."), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L. 2025See also State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 197 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014) ("[T]he appellate standard of review for a district judge's ruling on a motion in limine invoking the third-party evidence rule is abuse of discretion."), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.	1	1
State v. Inkelaargreen kan · 2011 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 441 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011) (“[I]n this case, none of the evidence proffered by the defense connected [the third party] to the charged crimes.”); State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 275 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (“We conclude that under the totality of facts and circumstances in this case, the [third-party evidence] neither indicate[s] [the third party’s] motive to commit the crimes nor otherwise connects] him to the murder.”); State v. Brown, 285 Kan. at 305 (“[N]one of the evidence offered by Brown amounted to anything more than base less innuendo. 2014See State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 441 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011) (“[I]n this case, none of the evidence proffered by the defense connected [the third party] to the charged crimes.”); State v. Tahah, 293 Kan. 267, 275 , 262 P.3d 1045 (2011) (“We conclude that under the totality of facts and circumstances in this case, the [third-party evidence] neither indicate[s] [the third party’s] motive to commit the crimes nor otherwise connects] him to the murder.”); State v. Brown, 285 Kan. at 305 (“[N]one of the evidence offered by Brown amounted to anything more than base less innuendo.	1	1
State v. Shaddengreen kan · 2010 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014See State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007) (application of third-party evidence rule subject to review for abuse of discretion); see also State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010) (standard of review on evidentiary decision depends on rule, principle applied by district judge). 2014See State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007) (application of third-party evidence rule subject to review for abuse of discretion); see also State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010) (standard of review on evidentiary decision depends on rule, principle applied by district judge).	1	1
State v. Bedfordgreen kan · 2000 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973). 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973).	1	1
State v. Neffgreen kan · 1950 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 2 sentences 2003See State v. Neff, 169 Kan. 116, 123 , 218 P.2d 248 , cert. denied 340 U.S. 866 (1950) (defendant was denied opportunity to present evidence that others had same motive to commit crimes when State’s case was based on confession; court applied third-party evidence rule and noted that excluded testimony would only confuse jury, permitting it to “indulge in speculations on collateral matters devoid of probative value relative to who committed the murder” and diverting its attention from the main issue). 2003See State v. Neff, 169 Kan. 116, 123 , 218 P.2d 248 , cert. denied 340 U.S. 866 (1950) (defendant was denied opportunity to present evidence that others had same motive to commit crimes when State’s case was based on confession; court applied third-party evidence rule and noted that excluded testimony would only confuse jury, permitting it to “indulge in speculations on collateral matters devoid of probative value relative to who committed the murder” and diverting its attention from the main issue).	1	1
Pennsylvania ex rel. Master v. Baldigreen scotus · 1950 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003 1 sentence 2003See State v. Neff, 169 Kan. 116, 123 , 218 P.2d 248 , cert. denied 340 U.S. 866 (1950) (defendant was denied opportunity to present evidence that others had same motive to commit crimes when State’s case was based on confession; court applied third-party evidence rule and noted that excluded testimony would only confuse jury, permitting it to “indulge in speculations on collateral matters devoid of probative value relative to who committed the murder” and diverting its attention from the main issue).	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 (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Burnett green kan · 2014 1 sentence 2020The Kansas Supreme Court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Burnett's proffered evidence for the purpose of establishing a third party's responsibility for the crime. 300 Kan. at 433 .	1	2020–2020
State v. Skolaut green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret	1	2011–2011
State v. Bricker green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret	1	2011–2011
State v. Gonzalez green kan · 2010 2 sentences 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret 2011Standard of Review We stated our standard for reviewing this issue in State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 303 , 173 P.3d 612 (2007): "A trial court's decision under the third-party evidence rule at the heart of an evidentiary question before us here is subject to an abuse of discretion standard of review on appeal. [Citation omitted.] This standard of review places the burden of proof on appeal on the party alleging that such an abuse of discretion occurred. [Citation omitted.]" We recently held that "[a] number of considerations comprise this standard, including review to determine that the discret	1	2011–2011
State v. Peckham green kan · 1994 2 sentences 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973). 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973).	1	2004–2004
State v. Bornholdt green kan · 1997 2 sentences 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973). 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973).	1	2004–2004
State v. Evans green kan · 2003 2 sentences 2004The district court excluded the circumstantial evidence under the third-party evidence rule. 275 Kan. at 97-98 . 2004The district court excluded the circumstantial evidence under the third-party evidence rule. 275 Kan. at 97-98 .	1	2004–2004
State v. Calvert green kan · 1973 2 sentences 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973). 2004See State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 320 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Bornholdt, 261 Kan. 644, 666 , 932 P.2d 964 (1997); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 321 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Calvert, 211 Kan. 174, 179 , 505 P.2d 1110 (1973).	1	2004–2004
State v. Hooker green kan · 2001 1 sentence 2003Application of the third-party evidence rule was most recently discussed by this court in Hooker, 271 Kan. 52 .	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (4) 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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check