purposes behind the confrontation requirement in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2023 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Reedgreen kan · 2015 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 227, 247 , 352 P.3d 530 (2015) (rejecting Reed's theory that motives were dissimilar because Reed's attorney wanted to assess witness' demeanor in first hearing and discredit witness in second hearing). 2021See State v. Reed, 302 Kan. 227, 247 , 352 P.3d 530 (2015) (rejecting Reed's theory that motives were dissimilar because Reed's attorney wanted to assess witness' demeanor in first hearing and discredit witness in second hearing).	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 (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Terry green kan · 1969 2 sentences 2023As this court explained in [State v.] Terry, [ 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 (1969)] '[t]his exception [of admitting preliminary hearing testimony] has been explained as arising from practical necessity and justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.' 202 Kan. 599 , Syl. ¶ 3." Stano, 284 Kan. at 144 . 2023As this court explained in [State v.] Terry, [ 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 (1969)] '[t]his exception [of admitting preliminary hearing testimony] has been explained as arising from practical necessity and justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.' 202 Kan. 599 , Syl. ¶ 3." Stano, 284 Kan. at 144 .	6	1977–2023
State v. Noah green kan · 2007 2 sentences 2023In State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 613 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007), the Kansas Supreme Court squarely addressed the question of what constitutes a constitutionally adequate opportunity for cross-examination. 2023In State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 613 , 162 P.3d 799 (2007), the Kansas Supreme Court squarely addressed the question of what constitutes a constitutionally adequate opportunity for cross-examination.	1	2023–2023
State v. Stano green kan · 2007 1 sentence 2023As this court explained in [State v.] Terry, [ 202 Kan. 599 , 451 P.2d 211 (1969)] '[t]his exception [of admitting preliminary hearing testimony] has been explained as arising from practical necessity and justified on the ground that the right of cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement.' 202 Kan. 599 , Syl. ¶ 3." Stano, 284 Kan. at 144 .	1	2023–2023
State v. Kirk green kan · 1973 2 sentences 1978(State v. Steward, 219 Kan. 256 , 547 P.2d 773 ; and State v. Kirk, 211 Kan. 165, 169 , 505 P.2d 619 .) Here the prosecution did everything possible to obtain the presence of the witness. 1978(State v. Steward, 219 Kan. 256 , 547 P.2d 773 ; and State v. Kirk, 211 Kan. 165, 169 , 505 P.2d 619 .) Here the prosecution did everything possible to obtain the presence of the witness.	1	1978–1978
State v. Steward green kan · 1976 2 sentences 1978(State v. Steward, 219 Kan. 256 , 547 P.2d 773 ; and State v. Kirk, 211 Kan. 165, 169 , 505 P.2d 619 .) Here the prosecution did everything possible to obtain the presence of the witness. 1978(State v. Steward, 219 Kan. 256 , 547 P.2d 773 ; and State v. Kirk, 211 Kan. 165, 169 , 505 P.2d 619 .) Here the prosecution did everything possible to obtain the presence of the witness.	1	1978–1978
Barber v. Page green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 1969The exception has been explained as arising from practical necessity and justified on the 602 ground that the right o£ cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement (Barber v. Page, 390 U. S. 719 , 20 L. 1969The exception has been explained as arising from practical necessity and justified on the 602 ground that the right o£ cross-examination initially afforded provides substantial compliance with the purposes behind the confrontation requirement (Barber v. Page, 390 U. S. 719 , 20 L.	1	1969–1969

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-459 (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

KS 8 (1969–2023) TX 8 (1968–1993) WI 6 (1978–2003) PA 6 (1975–2024) MO 5 (1977–2019) LA 4 (1986–2016) IL 3 (1974–1986) MD 3 (1977–1993) CA 3 (1980–2021) FL 2 (1980–2003) OH 2 (1980–1983) MS 2 (1992–1996) NJ 2 (1977–1982) CO 2 (1979–1982) AZ 2 (1971–1981) OR 2 (1969–1979)

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