 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Conway, No. 93,627,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for first-degree felony murder was proper because the evidence of defendant's gang affiliation was properly admitted since the State did not offer any evidence of previous crimes of civil wrongs committed by the gangs in question and defendant did not request a limiting instruction regarding the gang evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Hernandez, No. 94,295,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's first-degree murder conviction was proper because the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred during closing arguments regarding defendant's postarrest silence had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. Such comments did not deny defendant a fair trial and they were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| State v. Johnson, No. 92,956,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, photographs of the victim were properly admitted because a doctor testified that the photographs would help illustrate his description of the injuries, there was no contention that the photographs showed unnecessary autopsy procedures, and the doctor testified that each photograph gave a clearer view of a particular wound.
|
|||||
| State v. Scott-Herring, No. 95,673,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of first-degree, premeditated murder was affirmed because the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a photograph of defendant holding a revolver; the photograph was relevant to establish defendant's possession of a gun resembling the possible murder weapon on the night of the murder.
|
|||||
| State v. Stano, No. 95,138,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err when it excluded exculpatory hearsay statements made by defendant to detective as (1) conflicting statements to other witnesses were made in different contexts to different people at different times; and (2) it was attempt to offer those statements into evidence without allowing State opportunity to cross-examine defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Walters, No. 92,592,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's belief that self-defense was necessary under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3211 was not reasonable because the victim retreated to a vehicle after defendant fired a shot, after the victim got into his vehicle, defendant shot him, and although defendant testified that he was afraid the victim went to get a gun, he did not see a gun before firing.
|
|||||
| State v. Woolverton, No. 93,751,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, June 8, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not subjected to custodial interrogation because, after introducing themselves and advising defendant of the purpose for the interview, the detectives informed him that he would not be arrested and could return to his apartment after the interview, and after talking with the detectives, defendant returned to his apartment.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
