no-sympathy instruction in Kansas

2023The district court denied Holmes' request for a no-sympathy instruction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding the incidents of crying were brief. 278 Kan. at 635-36 .

2021The district court denied the defendant's request for a no-sympathy instruction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed its decision. 278 Kan. at 635-36 ; see also State v. Reser, 244 Kan. 306, 316-17 , 767 P.2d 1277 (1989) (finding that no-sympathy instruction was necessary where defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sodomy against his 14-year-old stepdaughter, despite defendant's argument that instruction was necessary because of disparity in size and age between himself and victim and because crimes occurred in small town where it was likely jurors would know victim and defe

2021The district court denied the defendant's request for a no-sympathy instruction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed its decision. 278 Kan. at 635-36 ; see also State v. Reser, 244 Kan. 306, 316-17 , 767 P.2d 1277 (1989) (finding that no-sympathy instruction was necessary where defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sodomy against his 14-year-old stepdaughter, despite defendant's argument that instruction was necessary because of disparity in size and age between himself and victim and because crimes occurred in small town where it was likely jurors would know victim and defe

2021The district court denied the defendant's request for a no-sympathy instruction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed its decision. 278 Kan. at 635-36 ; see also State v. Reser, 244 Kan. 306, 316-17 , 767 P.2d 1277 (1989) (finding that no-sympathy instruction was necessary where defendant was convicted of multiple counts of rape and sodomy against his 14-year-old stepdaughter, despite defendant's argument that instruction was necessary because of disparity in size and age between himself and victim and because crimes occurred in small town where it was likely jurors would know victim and defe

2021Although a no-sympathy instruction was not at issue on appeal in State v. Rhone, 219 Kan. 542 , 548 P.2d 752 (1976), it is often cited as an example of the unusual circumstances which might warrant such an instruction.

2021Although a no-sympathy instruction was not at issue on appeal in State v. Rhone, 219 Kan. 542 , 548 P.2d 752 (1976), it is often cited as an example of the unusual circumstances which might warrant such an instruction.

2021In performing this analysis, we "consider whether the subject instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the entire record." State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 4, 286 P.3d 195 (2012).

2021In performing this analysis, we "consider whether the subject instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the entire record." State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 4, 286 P.3d 195 (2012).

2019See State v. Jones , 298 Kan. 324 , 338-39, 311 P.3d 1125 (2013) ; State v. Baker , 281 Kan. 997 , 1004, 135 P.3d 1098 (2006).

2019In Baker , our Supreme Court held that the no-sympathy instruction was not warranted in a case with evidence that a murder victim was paraplegic and suffered from extreme pain and physical weakness when he was killed. 281 Kan. at 1005 .

2014Supplementation of the Aiding and Abetting Instruction Williams was prosecuted as an aider and abettor, and the jury received the following aiding and abetting instruction, which conforms with PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 (responsibility for crimes of another): “A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant’s participation, if any, in the actual commission of die crime.” Williams requested that the instruction

2014Supplementation of the Aiding and Abetting Instruction Williams was prosecuted as an aider and abettor, and the jury received the following aiding and abetting instruction, which conforms with PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 (responsibility for crimes of another): “A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant’s participation, if any, in the actual commission of die crime.” Williams requested that the instruction

2014Standard of Review “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the

2014Standard of Review “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the

2014Standard of Review “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the

2014Nevertheless, even if we were to find that the no-sympathy instruction was not factually appropriate in this case, we would be convinced that, even under the most stringent harmless error test, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2014App. 2d 725, 727-28 , 216 P.3d 707 (2009), rev. denied 290 Kan. 1104 (2010), a Court of Appeals panel rejected the PIK committee’s rationale for finding that the no-sympathy instruction is ob *1044 jectionable, specifically finding that it is not “inherently pernicious to tell jurors not to do tilings they should not do.” The Williams panel referred to State v. Sully, 219 Kan. 222, 226 , 547 P.2d 344 (1976), which initially discussed the PIK committee’s view on the no-sympathy instruction and found that it may be the better practice to omit the no-sympathy instruction because the instruction “

2014App. 2d 725, 727-28 , 216 P.3d 707 (2009), rev. denied 290 Kan. 1104 (2010), a Court of Appeals panel rejected the PIK committee’s rationale for finding that the no-sympathy instruction is ob *1044 jectionable, specifically finding that it is not “inherently pernicious to tell jurors not to do tilings they should not do.” The Williams panel referred to State v. Sully, 219 Kan. 222, 226 , 547 P.2d 344 (1976), which initially discussed the PIK committee’s view on the no-sympathy instruction and found that it may be the better practice to omit the no-sympathy instruction because the instruction “

2014Nevertheless, even if we were to find that the no-sympathy instruction was not factually appropriate in this case, we would be convinced that, even under the most stringent harmless error test, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2014Nevertheless, even if we were to find that the no-sympathy instruction was not factually appropriate in this case, we would be convinced that, even under the most stringent harmless error test, “there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2009The second case is State v. Harmon, 254 Kan. 87 , 865 P.2d 1011 (1993).

2009The second case is State v. Harmon, 254 Kan. 87 , 865 P.2d 1011 (1993).

2009On appeal, the court reversed, finding that the no-sympathy instruction “combined with the trial court’s refusal to instruct on diminished capacity . . . [removed] from the juiy’s consideration defendant’s capacity to form the intent necessary to commit the crime.” 26 Kan.