Supreme Court of Kansas· 4/15/1994

State v. MacK

Citations

871 P.2d 1265
255 Kan. 21
1994 Kan. LEXIS 61

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

determining that defendant could not prevail by presenting on appeal reasons for suppressing identification that were never presented to trial court
discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress
discussing the eyewitness identification test applied in ruling on a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress
\[a]n eyewitness identification due process determination is a mixed question of law and fact that should be reviewed de novo\
“[t]he admissibility of an identification is a mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo”
\An eyewitness identification due process determination is a mixed question of law and fact that should be reviewed de novo.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Six

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

17 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.