Supreme Court of Kansas· 6/1/2001
State v. Deal
Citations
- 23 P.3d 840
- 271 Kan. 483
- 2001 Kan. LEXIS 387
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding defendant not in custody when interrogated for three hours at police station where other factors did not suggest he was detained
- purpose of making a proffer is to allow trial court to make evidentiary decision based on substance of testimony
- Photographs which are relevant and material in assisting juiy’s understanding of medical testimony are admissible, including photographs which aid pathologist in explaining cause of death.
- Photographs which are relevant and material in assisting the jury’s understanding of medical testimony are admissible, including photographs which aid a pathologist in explaining the cause of death.
- Photographs which are relevant and material in assisting the jury’s understanding of medical testimony are admissible, including photographs which aid a pathologist in explaining the cause of death.
- purpose of making a proffer is to allow trial judge to make evidentiary decision based on substance of testimony
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Abbott, Lockett, Six
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas· 2007-03-23· cited 131×
- State v. WarledoSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-08-08· cited 94×
- State v. KesselringSupreme Court of Kansas· 2005-06-03· cited 84×
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Kansas· 2003-01-24· cited 78×
- State v. RiojasSupreme Court of Kansas· 2009-03-27· cited 78×
- State v. HillSupreme Court of Kansas· 2006-03-17· cited 67×
- State v. DixonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2005-06-03· cited 63×
- State v. WilkersonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2004-06-25· cited 62×
- State v. TorresSupreme Court of Kansas· 2005-10-21· cited 62×
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of Kansas· 2002-01-25· cited 59×
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of Kansas· 2007-02-09· cited 48×
- State v. SappingtonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2007-11-02· cited 43×
- State v. MortonSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-07-03· cited 40×
- State v. BoldridgeSupreme Court of Kansas· 2002-11-01· cited 31×
- State v. ParkerSupreme Court of Kansas· 2004-05-14· cited 31×
- State v. BakerSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-12-05· cited 27×
- Deal v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas· 2008-06-27· cited 22×
- State v. CobbCourt of Appeals of Kansas· 2002-04-12· cited 21×
- State v. HoffmanSupreme Court of Kansas· 2009-01-30· cited 19×
- The Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, Unified School District No. 365 v. DieboltSupreme Court of Kansas· 2014-03-21· cited 19×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.