8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 3 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. Sinnardgreen1 sentence2024Under Kansas law, hearsay is "[e]vidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter stated." K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-460; State v. Sinnard, 318 Kan. 261 , 287, 543 P.3d 525 9 (2024). "'"The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination."'" 318 Kan. at 287. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Race
green
2 sentences2024"Out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated are not hearsay under K.S.A. 60-460." 293 Kan. at 76 . "'The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination.'" 293 Kan. at 76 . 32 2. 2024"Out-of-court statements that are not offered to prove the truth of the matter stated are not hearsay under K.S.A. 60-460." 293 Kan. at 76 . "'The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination.'" 293 Kan. at 76 . 32 2. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Becker
green
2 sentences2011"The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination." Becker, 290 Kan. at 846 , 235 P.3d 424 . 2011"The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, the credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination." Becker, 290 Kan. at 846 , 235 P.3d 424 . | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Boldridge v. State
green
2 sentences2011“The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, tire credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination.” Becker, 290 Kan. at 846 (citing State v. Boldridge, 289 Kan. 618, 634 , 215 P.3d 585 [2009]). 2011“The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth of the matter stated, tire credibility of the declarant is the basis for its reliability, and the declarant must therefore be subject to cross-examination.” Becker, 290 Kan. at 846 (citing State v. Boldridge, 289 Kan. 618, 634 , 215 P.3d 585 [2009]). | 2 | 2010–2011 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences2009“The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth asserted in it, the credibility of the asserter is the basis for the inference, and therefore the asserter must be subject to cross-examination. 6 Wigmore on Evidence § 1766 (Chadboum rev. 1976).” State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 698 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996). 2009“The theory behind the hearsay rule is that when a statement is offered as evidence of the truth asserted in it, the credibility of the asserter is the basis for the inference, and therefore the asserter must be subject to cross-examination. 6 Wigmore on Evidence § 1766 (Chadboum rev. 1976).” State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 698 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Oliphant
green
2 sentences2024As our Supreme Court explained: "It may be conceded that where an extrajudicial statement is offered merely to show the fact of its having been made, it is admissible when testified to by a person who heard it." State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451, 454 , 502 P.2d 626 (1972). 2024As our Supreme Court explained: "It may be conceded that where an extrajudicial statement is offered merely to show the fact of its having been made, it is admissible when testified to by a person who heard it." State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451, 454 , 502 P.2d 626 (1972). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.