Allen instruction in Kansas

2016The defendant challenged the instruction on appeal, suggesting that it violated the rule of States v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266-67 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), in which this court held that an Allen instruction given at the beginning of deliberations that said “ ‘another trial would be a burden on both sides’ ” was misleading and inaccurate.

2016The defendant challenged the instruction on appeal, suggesting that it violated the rule of States v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266-67 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), in which this court held that an Allen instruction given at the beginning of deliberations that said “ ‘another trial would be a burden on both sides’ ” was misleading and inaccurate.

2009In State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118 , 872 P.2d 278 (1994), the defendant challenged a similar modified Allen instruction.

2009In State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118 , 872 P.2d 278 (1994), the defendant challenged a similar modified Allen instruction.

2005In Burchette v. State, 278 Ga. 1, 2 , 596 S.E.2d 162 (2004), the Georgia Supreme Court also concluded that an Allen instruction which stated that the case “must be decided by some jury” was inaccurate.

2005In Burchette v. State, 278 Ga. 1, 2 , 596 S.E.2d 162 (2004), the Georgia Supreme Court also concluded that an Allen instruction which stated that the case “must be decided by some jury” was inaccurate.

2026Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 , 113 L.

2026Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 111 S. Ct. 1246 , 113 L.

2026Because the critical-stage analysis necessarily involves some consideration of the merits of the event in question, see State v. Jackson, 255 Kan. 455, 461 , 874 P.2d 1138 (1994), we consider what was at stake and what happened at the May 2018 hearing. 8 Allen's motion to dismiss stated simply: "COMES NOW, ANTHONY ALLEN, pro se, with standby counsel Zach V.

2026Because the critical-stage analysis necessarily involves some consideration of the merits of the event in question, see State v. Jackson, 255 Kan. 455, 461 , 874 P.2d 1138 (1994), we consider what was at stake and what happened at the May 2018 hearing. 8 Allen's motion to dismiss stated simply: "COMES NOW, ANTHONY ALLEN, pro se, with standby counsel Zach V.

2024Ed. 2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part by 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Anthony, 361 Wis. 2d 116, 144-56 , 860 N.W.2d 10 (2015) (affirming denial of the right to testify when defendant's proffered testimony was irrelevant and defendant's conduct was stubborn and defiant to the point of threatening the fairness and reliability of the trial process); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322, 328 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standard to find a defendant forfeited the right to testify by often interrupting the 11 proceedings with irrelevant arguments and repeatedly insulti

2024Ed. 2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part by 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Anthony, 361 Wis. 2d 116, 144-56 , 860 N.W.2d 10 (2015) (affirming denial of the right to testify when defendant's proffered testimony was irrelevant and defendant's conduct was stubborn and defiant to the point of threatening the fairness and reliability of the trial process); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322, 328 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standard to find a defendant forfeited the right to testify by often interrupting the 11 proceedings with irrelevant arguments and repeatedly insulti

2024Ed. 2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part by 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Anthony, 361 Wis. 2d 116, 144-56 , 860 N.W.2d 10 (2015) (affirming denial of the right to testify when defendant's proffered testimony was irrelevant and defendant's conduct was stubborn and defiant to the point of threatening the fairness and reliability of the trial process); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322, 328 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standard to find a defendant forfeited the right to testify by often interrupting the 11 proceedings with irrelevant arguments and repeatedly insulti

2024Ed. 2d 97 (1975), opinion reinstated in relevant part by 547 F.2d 1100 (9th Cir. 1976); State v. Anthony, 361 Wis. 2d 116, 144-56 , 860 N.W.2d 10 (2015) (affirming denial of the right to testify when defendant's proffered testimony was irrelevant and defendant's conduct was stubborn and defiant to the point of threatening the fairness and reliability of the trial process); Douglas v. State, 214 P.3d 312, 322, 328 (Alaska 2009) (applying the Allen standard to find a defendant forfeited the right to testify by often interrupting the 11 proceedings with irrelevant arguments and repeatedly insulti

2021Allen pursued a direct appeal, and this court remanded his case to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986), and evaluate Allen's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2021Allen pursued a direct appeal, and this court remanded his case to the trial court with directions to conduct a hearing under State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 , 716 P.2d 580 (1986), and evaluate Allen's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

2012This argument echoes our statement in State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 436 , 172 P.3d 1165 (2007), that “[o]ne might debate whether, upon reaching an impasse, a jury is coerced by hearing an Allen instruction from the judge, but not coerced by being referred back to the original instructions to read the Allen instruction on its own.

2012This argument echoes our statement in State v. Nguyen, 285 Kan. 418, 436 , 172 P.3d 1165 (2007), that “[o]ne might debate whether, upon reaching an impasse, a jury is coerced by hearing an Allen instruction from the judge, but not coerced by being referred back to the original instructions to read the Allen instruction on its own.

2012See Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 284 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011) (where defendant failed to present contrary ruling of Court of Appeals in petition for review, ruling not eligible for Supreme Court review); State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 29, 33 , 259 P.3d 691 (2011) (issue decided in defendant’s favor not cross-petitioned by the State not before this court).

2012See Holmes v. State, 292 Kan. 271, 284 , 252 P.3d 573 (2011) (where defendant failed to present contrary ruling of Court of Appeals in petition for review, ruling not eligible for Supreme Court review); State v. Roberts, 293 Kan. 29, 33 , 259 P.3d 691 (2011) (issue decided in defendant’s favor not cross-petitioned by the State not before this court).

2010Our next Court of Appeals decision, State v. Pruitt, 42 Kan.App.2d 166 , 211 P.3d 166 (2009), reversed a conviction as the result of the giving of an improper Allen instruction without any discussion of whether the jury might have been deadlocked or evidence that it was.

2010Our next Court of Appeals decision, State v. Pruitt, 42 Kan.App.2d 166 , 211 P.3d 166 (2009), reversed a conviction as the result of the giving of an improper Allen instruction without any discussion of whether the jury might have been deadlocked or evidence that it was.

2010In State v. Rivera, No. 100,848, 2010 WL 445689 , unpublished opinion filed January 29, 2010, a DUI conviction was reversed where the "deadlock" jury instruction was given prior to opening statements.

2010At the hearing, Allen argued, inter alia, that pursuant to Cypress Media, Inc., 268 Kan. 407 , KaMMCO should produce a privilege log identifying any documents claimed to be privileged, in lieu of requiring production of such material directly to Allen.

2007The Court of Appeals reversed his enhanced sentence based upon its interpretation of the sentencing statutes involved and summarily rejected Allen’s claim that his sentence violated the Constitution under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.

2007The Court of Appeals reversed his enhanced sentence based upon its interpretation of the sentencing statutes involved and summarily rejected Allen’s claim that his sentence violated the Constitution under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.

2005In State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), the Kansas Supreme Court held that disapproval of Allen-type instructions “has been limited to situations in which such an instruction was given to a jury after deliberations were in progress.” The court also stated that “[i]n contrast, we have held that it is not error to give this type of an instruction before a jury retires to begin deliberations. [Citations omitted.]” 276 Kan. at 569 ; see PIK Crim. 3d 68.12, Notes on Use (instruction can be given with other instructions at the conclusion of the case).

2005In State v. Makthepharak, 276 Kan. 563, 569 , 78 P.3d 412 (2003), the Kansas Supreme Court held that disapproval of Allen-type instructions “has been limited to situations in which such an instruction was given to a jury after deliberations were in progress.” The court also stated that “[i]n contrast, we have held that it is not error to give this type of an instruction before a jury retires to begin deliberations. [Citations omitted.]” 276 Kan. at 569 ; see PIK Crim. 3d 68.12, Notes on Use (instruction can be given with other instructions at the conclusion of the case).

2005Finally, in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 364 Mass. 87, 98-99 , 300 N.E.2d 192 (1973), the Massachusetts Supreme Court noted that the statement in an Allen instruction that “the case must at some time be decided” was a misstatement, even if a slight one, and had a tendency toward coercion.

2005Finally, in Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 364 Mass. 87, 98-99 , 300 N.E.2d 192 (1973), the Massachusetts Supreme Court noted that the statement in an Allen instruction that “the case must at some time be decided” was a misstatement, even if a slight one, and had a tendency toward coercion.

2005In People v. Gainer, 19 Cal. 3d 835, 851-52 , 139 Cal. Rptr. 861 , 566 P.2d 997 (1977), the California Supreme Court disapproved language in an Allen instruction which stated that the case “must at sometime be decided,” and noted that the statement was legally inaccurate.

2005In People v. Gainer, 19 Cal. 3d 835, 851-52 , 139 Cal. Rptr. 861 , 566 P.2d 997 (1977), the California Supreme Court disapproved language in an Allen instruction which stated that the case “must at sometime be decided,” and noted that the statement was legally inaccurate.