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.
29 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2016 0 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. Williamsgreen2 sentences2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ 2013Recently, in State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012), this court set out the analytical framework to be applied when a claim of error is based on the failure to give a juiy instruction that was not requested at trial. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Haberleingreen2 sentences2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ 2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hartgreen2 sentences2016“An overbroad instruction is erroneous because the charging instrument sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in dre accusation.” State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 508 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013) (citing Trautloff, 289 Kan. at 802-03 ); see also United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 , 105 S. Ct. 1811 , 85 L. 2016“An overbroad instruction is erroneous because the charging instrument sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in dre accusation.” State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 508 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013) (citing Trautloff, 289 Kan. at 802-03 ); see also United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 , 105 S. Ct. 1811 , 85 L. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Millergreen2 sentences2016“An overbroad instruction is erroneous because the charging instrument sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in dre accusation.” State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 508 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013) (citing Trautloff, 289 Kan. at 802-03 ); see also United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 , 105 S. Ct. 1811 , 85 L. 2016“An overbroad instruction is erroneous because the charging instrument sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in dre accusation.” State v. Hart, 297 Kan. 494, 508 , 301 P.3d 1279 (2013) (citing Trautloff, 289 Kan. at 802-03 ); see also United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 144 , 105 S. Ct. 1811 , 85 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Raskiegreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). 2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. 2013See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 18 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2013See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-06 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010); State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994). 2013See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-06 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010); State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
Guillan v. Wattsgreen2 sentences2012See Guillan v. Watts, 249 Kan. 606, 617 , 822 P.2d 582 (1991). 2012See Guillan v. Watts, 249 Kan. 606, 617 , 822 P.2d 582 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2012See Mitchell, 294 Kan. at 474-81 . | 1 | 1 |
| Timmerman v. Schroedergreen | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green1 sentence2010Reynolds Tobacco Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 1187, 1212-13 (D. | 1 | 1 |
| Barnett Ex Rel. Barnett v. Hawk Pharmacy, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pagegreen | 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. Smyser
green
2 sentences2016State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 204 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013). 2016State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 204 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2016State v. Jones, 295 Kan. 804, 812 , 286 P.3d 562 (2012). 2016State v. Jones, 295 Kan. 804, 812 , 286 P.3d 562 (2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Trautloff
green
2 sentences2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ 2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. McClelland
green
2 sentences2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ 2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish tire degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.” Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5. “ ‘A juiy instruction on the elements of a crime drat is broader than the complaint charging the crime is erroneous.’” State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815, 828 , 347 P.3d 211 (2015) (quoting State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 , Syl. ¶ 4, 217 P.3d 15 [2009] [wording of complaint binding on State in pursuing its theory of case before a juiy]); see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 210 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (State bound by complaint’ | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Boyde v. California
green
2 sentences2015Standard of Review In reviewing challenges to juiy instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial, we have employed the following standard of review: “In considering a [preserved] claim that a juiy instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the jury from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied die challenged instruction in a way diat prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.’ Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L. 2015Standard of Review In reviewing challenges to juiy instructions in the penalty phase of a capital trial, we have employed the following standard of review: “In considering a [preserved] claim that a juiy instruction in the penalty phase of a capital trial prevented the jury from giving proper consideration to mitigating evidence, our standard of review is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied die challenged instruction in a way diat prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence.’ Boyde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 380 , 110 S. Ct. 1190 , 108 L. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Betancourt
green
2 sentences2014Recently, in State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 , Syl. ¶ 1, 322 P.3d 353 (2014), we applied these principles and held that “the Kansas aiding and abetting statute does not create distinct material elements of a crime but simply assigns criminal responsibility. 2014Recently, in State v. Betancourt, 299 Kan. 131 , Syl. ¶ 1, 322 P.3d 353 (2014), we applied these principles and held that “the Kansas aiding and abetting statute does not create distinct material elements of a crime but simply assigns criminal responsibility. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2014But merely describing a material element or a factual circumstance that would prove the crime does not create alternative means, even if the description is included in a juiy instruction. [Citations omitted.]” 295 Kan. at 194 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Northcutt
green
2 sentences2014In State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010), our Supreme Court recently addressed whether the evidence presented during a first-degree murder trial supported the defendant’s request for a juiy instruction on sudden quarrel voluntaiy manslaughter. 2014In State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010), our Supreme Court recently addressed whether the evidence presented during a first-degree murder trial supported the defendant’s request for a juiy instruction on sudden quarrel voluntaiy manslaughter. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Yardley
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). 2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Zapata
green
1 sentence2013The court held: “The allegation of constitutional error in the juiy instruction does not require us to abandon the strict preclusion of review of invited error.” 779 P.2d at 1309 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Foster Ex Rel. Foster v. Klaumann
green
1 sentence2013It held the failure to make those modifications could have misled the juiy and required reversal. 42 Kan. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Cullen v. Pinholster
green
1 sentence2013K.S.A. 22-3414(3); State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1138 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Timley
green
2 sentences2013See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-06 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010); State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994). 2013See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-06 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010); State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289-90 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Osburn
green
2 sentences2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). 2013See, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 922 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012); State v. Yardley, 267 Kan. 37, 42 , 978 P.2d 886 (1999); State v. OsbuRN, 211 Kan. 248, 254 , 505 P.2d 742 (1973). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Ellmaker
green
2 sentences2013K.S.A. 22-3414(3); State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1138 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010). 2013K.S.A. 22-3414(3); State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1138 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2012The juiy instruction provided by the district court is based on, although not identical to, PIK Crim. 3d 68.12, which is commonly referred to as an Allen or Allen-type instruction, after Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S. Ct. 154 , 41 L. 2012The juiy instruction provided by the district court is based on, although not identical to, PIK Crim. 3d 68.12, which is commonly referred to as an Allen or Allen-type instruction, after Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S. Ct. 154 , 41 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Holman
green
1 sentence2012Holman, 295 Kan. at 116 , Syl. ¶ 3. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Laico
green
1 sentence2012Laico, 97 Wash. App. at 762 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Cook
green
2 sentences2012Generally, appellate courts may review the propriety of a trial court’s failure to provide a juiy instruction in cases where the defendant failed to object at trial: “If a defendant did not request the district court to give a particular jury instruction and did not object to its omission from the court’s instructions, tire defendant’s claim of error for the failure to give the challenged instruction is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Cook, 286 Kan. 1098 , Syl. ¶ 4, 191 P.3d 294 (2008); see K.S.A. 22-3414(3). 2012Generally, appellate courts may review the propriety of a trial court’s failure to provide a juiy instruction in cases where the defendant failed to object at trial: “If a defendant did not request the district court to give a particular jury instruction and did not object to its omission from the court’s instructions, tire defendant’s claim of error for the failure to give the challenged instruction is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” State v. Cook, 286 Kan. 1098 , Syl. ¶ 4, 191 P.3d 294 (2008); see K.S.A. 22-3414(3). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Stone
green
1 sentence2011We observed: “[Tjhese comments were the brackets around an argument that detailed for the juiy the factors that it could and should consider in determining the credibility of the witness.” 291 Kan. at 19 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Miller v. Zep Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Wecker v. Amend green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Smith v. Welch green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Cooperwood green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Trotter green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Rogers green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Humphery green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Moncla green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Griffin green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Richmond green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. Warren green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.