right to present defense in Kansas

2007State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 .” State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003).

2007State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 .” State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003).

2007State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 .” State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003).

2007State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 .” State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003).

2007State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 .” State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95, 102 , 62 P.3d 220 (2003).

2004State v. Bedford, 269 Kan. 315, 319 , 7 P.3d 224 (2000); State v. Davis, 256 Kan. 1, 11 , 883 P.2d 735 (1994); Bradley, 223 Kan. at 714 ." State v. Evans, 275 Kan. at 102 .

2012Instead, “ ‘the right... is subject to statutory rules and case law interpretations of the rules of evidence and procedure.’ ” 281 Kan. at 1085 (quoting State v. Lackey, 280 Kan. 190, 216 , 120 P.3d 332 [2005]).

2006“However, the right to present a defense is subject to statutory rules and case law interpretations of the rules of evidence and procedure. [Citation omitted.]” Lackey, 280 Kan. at 216 .

2007State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146 , Syl. ¶ 1, 120 P.3d 760 (2005).

2007State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146 , Syl. ¶ 1, 120 P.3d 760 (2005).

2025The Kansas Supreme Court has said the right to present a defense "is fundamental but its protection tempered by sensible control of the criminal trial process" meaning the right is "subject to procedural rules and evidentiary rulings that serve legitimate interests." State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 209 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2025The Kansas Supreme Court has said the right to present a defense "is fundamental but its protection tempered by sensible control of the criminal trial process" meaning the right is "subject to procedural rules and evidentiary rulings that serve legitimate interests." State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 209 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2024State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622, 638-39 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016).

2024State v. Seacat, 303 Kan. 622, 638-39 , 366 P.3d 208 (2016).

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2022For example, some courts have found the rule "presents a defendant whose motion to dismiss has been erroneously denied with a Hobson's choice: resting and sacrificing the right to present a defense out of fear that his or her testimony may cure defects in the prosecution's case, or putting on such evidence and thereby possibly assisting the prosecution in proving its case." In re Anthony J., 117 Cal. App. 4th 718, 732 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865 (2004).

2022For example, some courts have found the rule "presents a defendant whose motion to dismiss has been erroneously denied with a Hobson's choice: resting and sacrificing the right to present a defense out of fear that his or her testimony may cure defects in the prosecution's case, or putting on such evidence and thereby possibly assisting the prosecution in proving its case." In re Anthony J., 117 Cal. App. 4th 718, 732 , 11 Cal. Rptr. 3d 865 (2004).

2022In his direct appeal, Pulliam asserted: "(1) the district court denied him the right to present his defense by limiting the testimony of his expert witness; (2) the district court erred in not instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense; (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that deprived him of the right to a fair trial; (4) the district court erred by denying his motion for new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) the district court violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit

2022In his direct appeal, Pulliam asserted: "(1) the district court denied him the right to present his defense by limiting the testimony of his expert witness; (2) the district court erred in not instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense; (3) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct that deprived him of the right to a fair trial; (4) the district court erred by denying his motion for new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (5) the district court violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constit

2019State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828, 846 , 326 P.3d 387 (2014).

2019State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828, 846 , 326 P.3d 387 (2014).

2017State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 927 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 2316 (2015); see 15 State v. Meeks, 301 Kan. 114, 117 , 339 P.3d 766 (2014).

2017State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 927 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 2316 (2015); see 15 State v. Meeks, 301 Kan. 114, 117 , 339 P.3d 766 (2014).

2017State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 927 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014), cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 2316 (2015); see 15 State v. Meeks, 301 Kan. 114, 117 , 339 P.3d 766 (2014).

2015As the court noted in Hardy , “[i]n at least some cases involving the use of force, the State could make an evidentiary showing of probable cause without addressing possible self-defense.” 51 Kan.

2015As the court noted in Hardy, "[i]n at least some cases involving the use of force, the State could make an evidentiary showing of probable cause without addressing possible self-defense." 51 Kan.

2014See State v. Ly, 277 Kan. 386, 389-90 , 85 P.3d 1200 (defendant not entitled to continuance because he received ballistics results; defendant knew State was analyzing the evidence and could have requested independent testing prior to 4 days before trial), cert. denied 541 U.S. 1090 (2004); see also State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 1235 , 221 P.3d 561 (2009) (right to present defense subject to statutory rules of evidence and procedure and caselaw interpreting them); Carter, 284 Kan. at 319-20 (considering defense diligence or lack thereof in pursuing matter upon which motion to continue was base

2014Instead, the right is subject to statutory rules and caselaw interpretations of the rules of evidence and procedure.” State v. Astorga, 295 Kan. 339 , Syl. ¶ 2, 284 P.3d 279 (2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 133 S. Ct. 2877 (2013).

2014Instead, the right is subject to statutory rules and caselaw interpretations of the rules of evidence and procedure.” State v. Astorga, 295 Kan. 339 , Syl. ¶ 2, 284 P.3d 279 (2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 133 S. Ct. 2877 (2013).

2014Instead, the right is subject to statutory rules and caselaw interpretations of the rules of evidence and procedure.” State v. Astorga, 295 Kan. 339 , Syl. ¶ 2, 284 P.3d 279 (2012), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds 133 S. Ct. 2877 (2013).