Supreme Court of Kansas· 10/17/2008

State v. Vasquez

Citations

194 P.3d 563
287 Kan. 40
2008 Kan. LEXIS 730

How courts have described this case

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

holding victim’s nontestimonial hearsay statements were admissible under 60-460[d][3] and declining to address trial court’s admission of the statements under die forfeiture by wrongdoing exception
noting that the State presented convincing circumstantial evidence in the court's balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect
stating that facts did not “ ‘meet the provocation threshold— that which is calculated to deprive a reasonable [person] of self-control and to cause [the defendant] to act out of passion rather than reason’ ”
“As Reid stated: ‘ “Evidence having any tendency in reason to prove” suggests the probative element, while “any material fact” suggests the materiality element.’
State failed to show defendant lacked authority to enter his home when wife had not served a restraining order
Kansas Supreme Court may affirm a district court's ruling \if it is right even for the wrong reason.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Beier, Davis, Greene

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

43 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.