available defense in Kansas

2020Accordingly, we conclude the knowledge requirement of K.S.A. 21- 3502(a)(1)(C) justified a voluntary intoxication defense." Roberson further asserts our Supreme Court recently applied similar reasoning in Murrin, 309 Kan. at 397 : "The key language in [K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5205(b)] is not 'particular intent or other state of mind'; rather, it is the language that makes it a 'necessary element to constitute a particular crime.' This language establishes that voluntary intoxication is an available defense when a defining mental state is a stand-alone element separate and distinct from the actus

2020"This language establishes that voluntary intoxication is an available defense when a defining mental state is a stand-alone element separate and distinct from the actus reus of the crime." State v. Murrin, 309 Kan. 385, 397 , 435 P.3d 1126 (2019).

2016Hunter, 241 Kan. at 641-42 .

2002Esher, 22 Kan.

1996The Ninth Circuit Lothian court noted that the Seventh Circuit had held withdrawal is not an available defense to substantive fraud charges, citing United States v. Read, 658 F.2d 1225 (7th Cir. 1981), but the Lothian court distinguished Read on the facts because in Read *247 the withdrawal had no effect as the defendant had directed a key part of the scheme and the underlying substantive crimes were the inevitable consequences of the defendant’s actions.

1996In Lothian , conversely, the court held that the defendant’s withdrawal negated the element of the use of the mails or wires where that use was not an inevitable consequence of the defendant’s participation prior to withdrawal. 976 F.2d at 1263 .