2 Kan. App. 2d 10 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The controlling test in-Kansas for unavailability is the so-called ‘reasonable .diligence’ rale. That rule was expressed in State v. Washington, 206 Kan. 336 , 479 P.2d 833 , as follows:... - . ’ ‘Under the federal constitutional standard as applied to the states, the test of unavailability, for the purposes of the exception to the confrontation requirement, is whether the prosecutorial authorities have made a “good faith effort” to obtain the witness’s presence at trial (Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 ). Consistent with the federal mandafe is our long-standing rule that before the state may use the testimony of an absent witness given at a former trial or preliminary hearing, it must be made to appear the witness cannot, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, be produced at trial [citations orpitted].’ “To establish ‘reasonable diligence’ the state must present evidence of the effort made to secure the attendance of the witness. C.J. S. states the general rule that '[t]he preliminary proof should he full and convincing.’ 31A C.J.S., Evidence, § 391, p. 963. In State v. Brown, 181 Kan. 375 , 312 P.2d 832 , the court made it clear that evidence of the state’s diligence must be produced. In Brown the court stated: ‘Statements of counsel, however, are not evidence any more than are the opening statements of counsel in the presentation of a case before a jury or to the court. The foundation, which the law contemplates, is a foundation in evide”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Kan. App. 2d 530 - State v. Mitchell

2. ““ ‘Under the federal constitutional standard as applied to the states, the test of unavailability, for the purposes of the exception to the confrontation requirement, is whether the prosecutorial authorities have made a “good faith effort” to obtain the witness’s presence at trial (Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 , 20 L. Ed. 2d 255 , 88 S. Ct. 1318 ). Consistent with the federal mandate is our long-standing rule that before the state may use the testimony of an absent witness given at a former trial or preliminary hearing, it must be made to appear the witness cannot, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, be produced at trial (State v. Lesco, 194 Kan. 555 , 400 P.2d 695 ; State v. Guthrie, 192 Kan. 659 , 391 P.2d 95 ; State v. Brown, 181 Kan. 375 , 312 P.2d 832 ; State v. Bonskowski, 180 Kan. 726 , 308 P.2d 168 ; State v. Streeter, 173 Kan. 240 , 245 P.2d 1177 , Also, see K.S.A. 60-459[g]).’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 Kan. App. 2d 309 - State v. Fondren