claim that a jury instruction (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

claim that a jury instruction in Kansas

5 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2014 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Trujillogreen
kan · 2013 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013See State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625 , Syl. ¶ 1, 294 P.3d 281 (2013).

2013See State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625 , Syl. ¶ 1, 294 P.3d 281 (2013).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Boyde v. California green
scotus · 1990
2 sentences

2014Standard of Review “In considering a claim that a jury instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the jury from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.’ Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 108 L.

2014Standard of Review “In considering a claim that a jury instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the jury from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is ‘whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.’ Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 108 L.

32008–2014
State v. Scott green
kan · 2008
2 sentences

2014We employed the Boyde standard plus the traditional Kansas non-clearly erroneous jury instruction review standard in State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54 , 183 P.3d 801 (2008): “In considering a claim that a jury instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the juiy from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that tire jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L.

2014We employed the Boyde standard plus the traditional Kansas non-clearly erroneous jury instruction review standard in State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54 , 183 P.3d 801 (2008): “In considering a claim that a jury instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the juiy from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is “whether there is a reasonable likelihood that tire jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.” Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L.

22014–2014
State v. Groschang green
kan · 2001
2 sentences

2004This court has previously addressed a claim that a jury instruction on premeditation rendered K.S.A. 21-3401(a) unconstitutionally vague, in State v. Groschang, 272 Kan. 652 , 36 P.3d 231 (2001).

2004This court has previously addressed a claim that a jury instruction on premeditation rendered K.S.A. 21-3401(a) unconstitutionally vague, in State v. Groschang, 272 Kan. 652 , 36 P.3d 231 (2001).

12004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 21-3439 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4624 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4625 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4635 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

PA 23 (1999–2025) CT 15 (1994–2017) CA 12 (2013–2025) KS 5 (2004–2014) WA 2 (2013–2017) IN 2 (2003–2019)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check