History:
L. 1969, ch. 224, § 8; Repealed, L. 1982, ch. 182, § 150; January 1, 1983.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Cited in dissenting opinion of case extending procedural due process to school expulsion proceeding. Smith v. Miller, 213 Kan. 1, 21, 514 P.2d 377.
2. Neither this section nor the constitution affords a juvenile the right to have presence of anyone other than attorney at interrogation. State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541, 549, 550, 552 P.2d 905.
3. Contention statement taken in violation of section rejected; conviction of felony murder affirmed. State v. Cross, 223 Kan. 803, 804, 805, 576 P.2d 698.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1973–1997 · leading case: State v. Orr, 940 P.2d 42 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Orr, 940 P.2d 42 (Kan. 1997). “” “The constitution and K.S.A. 38-839 afford no right to the presence of anyone other than a lawyer trained to protect the legal rights of those accused.”
Smith v. Miller, 514 P.2d 377 (Kan. 1973). “38-813; and the juvenile judge in all hearings in the juvenile court is required to appoint a guardian ad litem. (K.S.A. 1972 Supp. 38-821.”
State v. Cross, 576 P.2d 698 (Kan. 1978). · cites it 3דDefendant argues the statement was taken in violation of K.S.A. 38-839, which provides in part: “When any child under the age of eighteen (18) years has been taken into custody by a law enforcement official, and such child indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.