nonexclusive factors in Kansas

2020Our Supreme Court has set forth the following nonexclusive factors to use in making this determination: "(1) the defendant's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the defendant's ability to communicate with the outside world; (4) the defendant's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the defendant's proficiency with the English language." State v. Woods, 301 Kan. 852, 867 , 348 P.3d 583 (2015).

2020Our Supreme Court has set forth the following nonexclusive factors to use in making this determination: "(1) the defendant's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the defendant's ability to communicate with the outside world; (4) the defendant's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the defendant's proficiency with the English language." State v. Woods, 301 Kan. 852, 867 , 348 P.3d 583 (2015).

2011As to the criteria or substantive considerations for the County’s decision, this court has provided guidance to zoning authorities by suggesting that they utilize the nonexclusive factors estabhshed in Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598-99 , 584 P.2d 130 (1978), and consider other relevant factors, including the zoning authority’s own comprehensive plan when acting on a rezoning apphcation.

2011As to the criteria or substantive considerations for the County’s decision, this court has provided guidance to zoning authorities by suggesting that they utilize the nonexclusive factors estabhshed in Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598-99 , 584 P.2d 130 (1978), and consider other relevant factors, including the zoning authority’s own comprehensive plan when acting on a rezoning apphcation.

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1 (2008) ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002). 14 In Zimmerman, the

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1 (2008) ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002). 14 In Zimmerman, the

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1 (2008) ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002). 14 In Zimmerman, the

2020State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519 , Syl. ¶ 3, 276 P.3d 165 (2012).

2020State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519 , Syl. ¶ 3, 276 P.3d 165 (2012).

2014In determining whether a defendant’s statement to a law enforcement officer was freely and voluntarily given, a trial court usually looks at tire totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and determines its vol-untariness by considering the following nonexclusive factors: (1) the accused’s mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interview; (3) the accused’s ability to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused’s age, intellect, and background; (5) the officer’s fairness in conducting the interview; and (6) tire accused’s fluency with the English l

2014In determining whether a defendant’s statement to a law enforcement officer was freely and voluntarily given, a trial court usually looks at tire totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement and determines its vol-untariness by considering the following nonexclusive factors: (1) the accused’s mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interview; (3) the accused’s ability to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused’s age, intellect, and background; (5) the officer’s fairness in conducting the interview; and (6) tire accused’s fluency with the English l

2012State v. McMullen, 290 Kan. 1, 4 , 221 P.3d 92 (2009); State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 836 , 190 P.3d 207 (2008).

2010We often recite that the court considers the following nonexclusive factors based upon the totality of the circumstances: “ ‘ “[T]he defendant’s mental condition; the manner and duration of the interrogation; the ability of the defendant to communicate with the outside world; the defendant’s age, intellect, and background; the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and the defendant’s proficiency with the English language.” ’ ” McMullen, 290 Kan. at 4 (quoting Ransom, 288 Kan. at 705-06 ).

2010We often recite that the court considers the following nonexclusive factors based upon the totality of the circumstances: “ ‘ “[T]he defendant’s mental condition; the manner and duration of the interrogation; the ability of the defendant to communicate with the outside world; the defendant’s age, intellect, and background; the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and the defendant’s proficiency with the English language.” ’ ” McMullen, 290 Kan. at 4 (quoting Ransom, 288 Kan. at 705-06 ).

2009The court considers the following nonexclusive factors based upon the totality of the circumstances: “ ‘[T]he defendant’s mental condition; the manner and duration of the interrogation; the ability of the defendant to communicate with the outside world; tire defendant’s age, intellect, and background; the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and the defendant’s proficiency with the English language.’ ” Ransom, 288 Kan. at 705 -06 (quoting State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 267 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 203 P.3d 1261 [2009]); see State v. Morton, 286 Kan. 632, 640 , 186 P.3d 785 (2008).

2009The *706 court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and determines voluntariness by considering the following nonexclusive factors: “[T]he defendant’s mental condition; the manner and duration of the interrogation; the ability of the . defendant to communicate with the outside world; the defendant’s age, intellect, and background; the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; arid the defendant’s proficiency with the English language.” State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 203 P.3d 1261 (2009).

2009The *706 court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession and determines voluntariness by considering the following nonexclusive factors: “[T]he defendant’s mental condition; the manner and duration of the interrogation; the ability of the . defendant to communicate with the outside world; the defendant’s age, intellect, and background; the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; arid the defendant’s proficiency with the English language.” State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 203 P.3d 1261 (2009).

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2026"Nonexclusive factors to consider in making this determination—if an interrogation is custodial or investigative—include: (1) the interrogation's time and place; (2) its duration; (3) the number of law enforcement officers present; (4) the conduct of the officer and the person questioned; (5) the presence or absence of actual physical restraint or its functional equivalent, such as drawn firearms or a stationed guard; (6) whether the person is being questioned as a suspect or a witness; (7) whether the person questioned was escorted by officers to the interrogation location or arrived under hi

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2026State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30, 36 , 127 P.3d 986 (2006); State v. Hill, 247 Kan. 377, 385 , 799 P.2d 997 (1990) (discussing adoption of ABA standards for plea negotiations in State v. Byrd, 203 Kan. 45, 50-52 , 453 P.2d 22 [1969]).

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly v. City of Shawnee, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1 (2008) ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002). 14 In Zimmerman, the

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2024See, e.g., 143rd Street Investors, 292 Kan. 690 , Syl. ¶ 3 ("Zoning authorities should consider the nonexclusive factors established in [Golden], other relevant factors, and the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on an application for rezoning."); Zimmerman, 289 Kan. at 945-46 ; Manly, 287 Kan. 63 , Syl. ¶ 5 ("When considering zoning matters, a governing body should consider the factors set forth in [Golden]."); McPherson Landfill, Inc. v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 274 Kan. 303 , Syl. ¶ 3, 49 P.3d 522 (2002); Johnson County Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Kansas City, 25

2022R.W., 58 Kan.

2022A trial court has discretion to order a psychiatric evaluation of a witness based on its consideration of the following nonexclusive factors: "(1) whether there was corroborating evidence of the complaining witness' version of the facts, "(2) whether the complaining witness demonstrates mental instability, "(3) whether the complaining witness demonstrates a lack of veracity, "(4) whether similar charges by the complaining witness against others are proven to be false, "(5) whether the defendant's motion for a psychological evaluation of the complaining witness appears to be a fishing expeditio

2022A trial court has discretion to order a psychiatric evaluation of a witness based on its consideration of the following nonexclusive factors: "(1) whether there was corroborating evidence of the complaining witness' version of the facts, "(2) whether the complaining witness demonstrates mental instability, "(3) whether the complaining witness demonstrates a lack of veracity, "(4) whether similar charges by the complaining witness against others are proven to be false, "(5) whether the defendant's motion for a psychological evaluation of the complaining witness appears to be a fishing expeditio

2020Gibson, 299 Kan. at 214 .

2020In performing its gatekeeping function, a district court may consider the nonexclusive factors set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 1 Ed. 2d 469 (1993).

2020In performing its gatekeeping function, a district court may consider the nonexclusive factors set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 , 125 L. 1 Ed. 2d 469 (1993).

2015Applying these principles, we found that Spagnola was not in a “posture or an environment in which it can be said that consent was voluntarily given free from coercion.” 295 Kan. at 1108 .

2015Nonexclusive factors to determine whether a citizen’s encounter with police is voluntary include “the display of a weapon, physical contact by the police officer, use of a commanding tone of voice, activation of sirens or flashers, a command to halt or to approach, and an attempt to control the ability to flee.” Spagnola, 295 Kan. at 1108 .