unlimited standard in Kansas

2026Standard of review Appellate courts use a multi-step framework for analyzing jury instruction issues on appeal, as laid out in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012): "(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 def

2026Standard of review Appellate courts use a multi-step framework for analyzing jury instruction issues on appeal, as laid out in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012): "(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 def

2026When viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports finding George committed aggravated burglary as he entered the house without authorization, took property he did not own, and remained within the house once humans were present. 6 A Lesser Included Instruction on Burglary Should Have Been Given Standard of Review Our review of a challenge to the jury instructions follows a four-step framework: "'(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)

2026When viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports finding George committed aggravated burglary as he entered the house without authorization, took property he did not own, and remained within the house once humans were present. 6 A Lesser Included Instruction on Burglary Should Have Been Given Standard of Review Our review of a challenge to the jury instructions follows a four-step framework: "'(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)

2026Standard of review Appellate courts use a multi-step framework for analyzing jury instruction issues on appeal, as laid out in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 (2012): "(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 def

2026When viewed in a light most favorable to the State, the evidence supports finding George committed aggravated burglary as he entered the house without authorization, took property he did not own, and remained within the house once humans were present. 6 A Lesser Included Instruction on Burglary Should Have Been Given Standard of Review Our review of a challenge to the jury instructions follows a four-step framework: "'(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)

2021Standard 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

2021Standard 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

2019Appellate courts perform a four-step review of challenges to jury instructions: "(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 instruction; and (4) finally, if the district cou

2019Appellate courts perform a four-step review of challenges to jury instructions: "(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 instruction; and (4) finally, if the district cou

2020The judge refused Moore's requests. 24 This court outlined the relevant standards of review for jury instruction issues in State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 184-85 , 322 P.3d 367 (2014): "'(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 o

2020The judge refused Moore's requests. 24 This court outlined the relevant standards of review for jury instruction issues in State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 184-85 , 322 P.3d 367 (2014): "'(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 o

2026State v. Holley, 313 Kan. 249 , 254, 485 P.3d 614 (2021).

2024State v. Holley, 313 Kan. 249 , 254, 485 P.3d 614 (2021).

2021State v. Bell, 280 Kan. 358, 362 , 121 P.3d 972 (2005).'" State v. Delacruz, 307 Kan. 523 , 533, 411 P.3d 1207 (2018); State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 1007 , 191 P.3d 256 (2008); State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

2021State v. Bell, 280 Kan. 358, 362 , 121 P.3d 972 (2005).'" State v. Delacruz, 307 Kan. 523 , 533, 411 P.3d 1207 (2018); State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 1007 , 191 P.3d 256 (2008); State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1029 , 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

2025"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 (2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377 , 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).

2021"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 (2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377 , 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).

2024Instructional error is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Owens, 314 Kan. 210 , 235, 496 P.3d 902 (2021).

2023When the giving of or failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is challenged on appeal, we apply a multi-step process when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: "'First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instructio

2021Relevant written statements made under oath may be admitted and considered by the court along with other evidence presented at the hearing." "When reviewing whether a district court complied with due process requirements in revoking a defendant's probation, an appellate court employs an unlimited standard of review." Hurley, 303 Kan. 575 , Syl. ¶ 1.

2020When determining whether a district court complied with due process requirements in revoking a defendant's probation, we apply an unlimited standard of review. 303 Kan. at 580 . 6 When reviewing a due process claim, we first determine whether a protected liberty or property interest is involved.

2020The analytic steps for reviewing the denial of a requested jury instruction are as follows: "'(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 instruction; and (4) finally, if the

2020The analytic steps for reviewing the denial of a requested jury instruction are as follows: "'(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 instruction; and (4) finally, if the

2013Standard of Review “We employ an unlimited standard of review when addressing issues pertaining to the Confrontation Clause of die Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Leshay, 289 Kan. 546, 547 , 213 P.3d 1071 (2009) (citing State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 612 , 162 P.3d 799 [2007]); see State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 708-09 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (whether confrontation rights have been violated is question of law subject to unlimited review).

2013Standard of Review “We employ an unlimited standard of review when addressing issues pertaining to the Confrontation Clause of die Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Leshay, 289 Kan. 546, 547 , 213 P.3d 1071 (2009) (citing State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 612 , 162 P.3d 799 [2007]); see State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 708-09 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (whether confrontation rights have been violated is question of law subject to unlimited review).

2022The trial court committed reversible error by denying Zeiner's request to modify the PIK instruction to define or replace "operate" as "drive." Our standard of review is clear and well known: "(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 de

2022The trial court committed reversible error by denying Zeiner's request to modify the PIK instruction to define or replace "operate" as "drive." Our standard of review is clear and well known: "(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 de

2016Standard of review To analyze jury instruction issues on appeal, this court follows a stair-step framework: ‘“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 lig

2016Standard of review To analyze jury instruction issues on appeal, this court follows a stair-step framework: ‘“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 lig

2026State v. Hall, 287 Kan. 139, 143 , 195 P.3d 220 (2008).

2026State v. Hall, 287 Kan. 139, 143 , 195 P.3d 220 (2008).

2020"When asked to review the violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this court reviews the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard, but the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review." State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992 , Syl. ¶ 11, 191 P.3d 256 (2008).

2020"When asked to review the violation of a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, this court reviews the district court's factual findings using a substantial competent evidence standard, but the ultimate legal conclusion is reviewed as a question of law using an unlimited standard of review." State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992 , Syl. ¶ 11, 191 P.3d 256 (2008).

2021Standard of Review "This court follows a four-step progression when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction; and finally, if the district court erred, this court determines whe

2020When analyzing jury instruction issues, appellate courts follow a four-step progression: "First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction; and finally, if the district court erred, this court determines whether the error was ha

2019App. 2d 725 , Syl. ¶ 1, 216 P.3d 707 [2009] )." Biglow v. Eidenberg, 308 Kan. 873 , 880-81, 424 P.3d 515 (2018).

2019Appellate courts address jury instruction challenges using a four-step process as follows: "'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

2018Standard of Review For challenges to jury instructions, 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 su

2018Standard of Review For challenges to jury instructions, 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 su

2017State v. Johnson, 297 Kan. 210, 224 , 301 P.3d 287 (2013).

2017State v. Johnson, 297 Kan. 210, 224 , 301 P.3d 287 (2013).

2017We review alleged jury instruction errors using the following framework: "When reviewing the failure to give a lesser included instruction, (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 9 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 su

2017We review alleged jury instruction errors using the following framework: "When reviewing the failure to give a lesser included instruction, (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 9 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 su

2013Standard of Review “We employ an unlimited standard of review when addressing issues pertaining to the Confrontation Clause of die Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Leshay, 289 Kan. 546, 547 , 213 P.3d 1071 (2009) (citing State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 612 , 162 P.3d 799 [2007]); see State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 708-09 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (whether confrontation rights have been violated is question of law subject to unlimited review).

2013Standard of Review “We employ an unlimited standard of review when addressing issues pertaining to the Confrontation Clause of die Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Leshay, 289 Kan. 546, 547 , 213 P.3d 1071 (2009) (citing State v. Noah, 284 Kan. 608, 612 , 162 P.3d 799 [2007]); see State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 708-09 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (whether confrontation rights have been violated is question of law subject to unlimited review).

2026State v. Hollins, 320 Kan. 240 , 242, 564 P.3d 778 (2025). 4 "At the second step, appellate courts consider whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate, using an unlimited standard of review of the entire record." Hollins, 320 Kan. at 242.

2026At the second step, appellate courts consider whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate, using an unlimited standard of review of the record." State v. Hollins, 320 Kan. 240 , 242, 564 P.3d 778 (2025). 11 "Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects the appellate court's reversibility inquiry at the third step." State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492 , 515, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).