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.
31 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2022 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. Kinggreen2 sentences2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct 2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct | 3 | 3 |
State v. Schreinergreen2 sentences2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct 2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct | 2 | 2 |
State v. Toshred2 sentences2013State v. Burnett, 293 Kan. 840, 850 , 270 P.3d 1115 (2012); Tosh, 278 Kan. at 85 . 2011State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 77 , 183 P.3d 801 (2008) (citing State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , Syl. ¶ 1, 91 P.3d 1204 [2004]). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Burnettgreen2 sentences2014State v. Burnett, 293 Kan. 840, 850 , 270 P.3d 1115 (2012). 2014State v. Burnett, 293 Kan. 840, 850 , 270 P.3d 1115 (2012). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Francogreen2 sentences2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct 2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elnickigreen1 sentence2012State v. Bur nett, 293 Kan. 840, 850 , 270 P.3d 1115 (2012); see State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 58 , 105 P.3d 122 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Albrightgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 428 , 153 P.3d 497 (2007). ‘We employ a two-step analysis in considering claims of prosecutorial misconduct: First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 77 , 183 P.3d 801 2009See State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 428 , 153 P.3d 497 (2007). ‘We employ a two-step analysis in considering claims of prosecutorial misconduct: First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 77 , 183 P.3d 801 | 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. McReynolds
green
2 sentences2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct 2022State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009) (outlining mode of analysis); see State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 351 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (noting considerable range permitted advocates, including prosecutor, in arguing their causes in jury summations).'" State v. Franco, 49 Kan. App. 2d 924, 938 , 319 P.3d 551 (2014) (quoting State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 , 793- 94, 264 P.3d 1033 [2011], rev. denied 296 Kan. 1135 [2013]). 13 If the argument fell outside what is proper, the courts then looked at three factors to assess the degree of prejudice: "'(1) whether the misconduct | 12 | 2009–2022 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2010Standard of Review This court employs the familiar two-step analysis for reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct. “ ‘First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 44 , 200 P.3d 1225 (2009) (quoting St 2010Standard of Review This court employs the familiar two-step analysis for reviewing claims of prosecutorial misconduct. “ ‘First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and deny him or her a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 44 , 200 P.3d 1225 (2009) (quoting St | 4 | 2009–2011 |
State v. McCaslin
green
2 sentences2012State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 715 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011). 2012State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 715 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Brinklow
green
2 sentences2011We have jurisdiction over this direct appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3601(b)(l). *58 Prosecutorial Misconduct Our review of prosecutorial misconduct claims has followed a now-familiar two-step analysis, which we have described as follows: “ ‘ “First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and de 2011We have jurisdiction over this direct appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3601(b)(l). *58 Prosecutorial Misconduct Our review of prosecutorial misconduct claims has followed a now-familiar two-step analysis, which we have described as follows: “ ‘ “First, the court must determine whether the prosecutor’s statements were outside the wide latitude for language and manner a prosecutor is allowed when discussing the evidence; second, it must determine whether the comments constitute plain error, that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the accused and de | 2 | 2010–2011 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences2011None of these three factors is individually controlling, and before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say both the K.S.A. 60261 and the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2011None of these three factors is individually controlling, and before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say both the K.S.A. 60261 and the Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Scott v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2004State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 113 , 21 P.3d 516 , cert. denied 534 U.S. 1047 (2001). 2003State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 113 , 21 P.3d 516 , cert denied 534 U.S. 1047 (2001). | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Scott
green
2 sentences2004State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 113 , 21 P.3d 516 , cert. denied 534 U.S. 1047 (2001). 2004State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 113 , 21 P.3d 516 , cert. denied 534 U.S. 1047 (2001). | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Naputi
green
2 sentences2013State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 58 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011). 2013State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55, 58 , 260 P.3d 86 (2011). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2005Second, the court must decide whether the comments constitute plain error; that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the defendant and deny the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal. 275 Kan. at 121 . 2005Second, the court must decide whether the comments constitute plain error; that is, whether the statements were so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the defendant and deny the defendant a fair trial, requiring reversal. 275 Kan. at 121 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Hebert
green
2 sentences2004See, e.g., Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90-91 ; State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004). 2004See, e.g., Tosh, 278 Kan. at 90-91 ; State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 82 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Sperry
green
2 sentences2003State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 308-09 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). 2003State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 308-09 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.