Supreme Court of Kansas· 7/27/2012

State v. Marshall

Citations

294 Kan. 850
281 P.3d 1112
2012 WL 3056023
2012 Kan. LEXIS 439

How courts have described this case

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

concluding witness expressed degree of certainty when witness responded affirmatively when asked whether he was “certain” as to his identification of defendant
noting State's strongest evidence was witness' identification of defendant, but other circumstantial evidence linked defendant to crime, mitigating impact of instructional error
noting general rule that prosecutor may not offer jury his or her personal opinion as to credibility of witness
finding witness’ identification critical when charges “rested almost entirely on” witness’ identification of defendant
responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor's improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative
responsive, extemporaneous, or rebuttal nature of a prosecutor’s improper comment or argument is a factor relevant to the prejudice analysis, albeit not determinative

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Luckert

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.