Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2022 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cooperwoodgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572 , *705 580-82, 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (example of such an analysis relating to the failure to give PIK Crim. 3d 52.08). 2008See State v. Cooperwood, 282 Kan. 572 , *705 580-82, 147 P.3d 125 (2006) (example of such an analysis relating to the failure to give PIK Crim. 3d 52.08). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Breeden
green
2 sentences2022See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22- 3414(3); State v. Breeden, 297 Kan. 567, 579-80 , 304 P.3d 660 (2013). 2020As a result, a defendant may challenge the lack of a limiting instruction as clearly erroneous even if the defendant did not object to the admission of the prior crimes evidence at trial. 297 Kan. at 583 . | 2 | 2020–2022 |
State v. Reid
green
2 sentences2012State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646, 654 , 244 P.3d 267 (2011); State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 513 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). 2012State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646, 654 , 244 P.3d 267 (2011); State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 513 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2012State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646, 654 , 244 P.3d 267 (2011); State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 513 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). 2012State v. Brown, 291 Kan. 646, 654 , 244 P.3d 267 (2011); State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 513 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pabst v. Kansas
green
1 sentence2006Nevertheless, Wahweotten acknowledges that he failed to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. “ Tt is well established that [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s failure to give an instruction by a clearly erroneous standard where the party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 (2002). “ ‘Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if th | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Shirley
green
2 sentences2006Nevertheless, Wahweotten acknowledges that he failed to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. “ Tt is well established that [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s failure to give an instruction by a clearly erroneous standard where the party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 (2002). “ ‘Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if th 2006Nevertheless, Wahweotten acknowledges that he failed to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. “ Tt is well established that [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s failure to give an instruction by a clearly erroneous standard where the party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 (2002). “ ‘Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if th | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pabst
green
2 sentences2006Nevertheless, Wahweotten acknowledges that he failed to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. “ Tt is well established that [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s failure to give an instruction by a clearly erroneous standard where the party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 (2002). “ ‘Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if th 2006Nevertheless, Wahweotten acknowledges that he failed to object to the lack of a limiting instruction. “ Tt is well established that [an appellate court] reviews a trial court’s failure to give an instruction by a clearly erroneous standard where the party neither requested the instruction nor objected to its omission.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 660 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 (2002). “ ‘Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if th | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.
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.