constitutional harmlessness inquiry in Kansas

2026To decide whether there was prejudice, this court adopts the constitutional harmlessness inquiry set out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2026To decide whether there was prejudice, this court adopts the constitutional harmlessness inquiry set out in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2024We review prejudice using the traditional constitutional harmlessness inquiry—whether "the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]).

2024We review prejudice using the traditional constitutional harmlessness inquiry—whether "the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]).

2020In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2016Ed. 2d 321 (1958); Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. at 242 .) Our own court has long summarized, articulated, and followed the constitutional harmlessness test from Chapman as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2026In other words, the question is whether there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [decision]." State v. Flack, 318 Kan. 79 , 111, 541 P.3d 717 (2024).

2026In other words, the question is whether there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [decision]." State v. Flack, 318 Kan. 79 , 111, 541 P.3d 717 (2024).

2026Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , Syl ¶ 2 (explaining the constitutional harmlessness inquiry).

2024After finding the errors individually harmless, this court must apply the constitutional harmlessness test and determine whether "the party benefitting from the errors [has] establish[ed] beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect of the errors did not affect the outcome." Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , Syl. ¶ 3.

2024State v. Blevins, 313 Kan. 413 , 428, 485 P.3d 1175 (2021); State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 596, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

2024State v. Blevins, 313 Kan. 413 , 428, 485 P.3d 1175 (2021); State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 596, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

2025Warrior, 294 Kan. at 510 .

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2024See State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016); Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 . 5 Unanimity Analysis First, we must decide whether multiple acts were presented by the State.

2024See Carr, 300 Kan. at 211 (noting the majority rule "appears" to be the harmless-error standard for a wrongful denial of the right to testify) (citing Palmer v. Hendricks, 592 F.3d 386 [3d Cir. 2010]; Ortega v. O'Leary, 843 F.2d 258 [7th Cir. 1988]; Wright v. Estelle, 572 F.2d 1071 [5th Cir. 1978]; Quarels v. Com., 142 S.W.3d 73 [Ky. 2004]).

2022In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" See also State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 412 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019).

2022In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" See also State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 412 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019).

2021State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 220‐21, 445 P.3d 726 (2019).

2021State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 220‐21, 445 P.3d 726 (2019).

2021Ed. 2d 705 (1967): "the party benefitting from judicial comment error has the burden to 'prove[ ] beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., prove[ ] there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict,' as with prosecutorial error." Boothby, 310 Kan. at 625 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011]). 14 The State claims that Blevins failed to preserve this issue for review for a number of reasons, including the absence of a contemporaneous objection and

2020Under that standard, an error is harmless if this court is "persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no impact on the trial's outcome, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 607 , 343 P.3d 1165 (2015). 14 The testimonial status of passcodes and passwords is a rich and rapidly developing area of law this court has not yet addressed.

2020Under that standard, an error is harmless if this court is "persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no impact on the trial's outcome, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Salary, 301 Kan. 586, 607 , 343 P.3d 1165 (2015). 14 The testimonial status of passcodes and passwords is a rich and rapidly developing area of law this court has not yet addressed.

2020Just as in those cases, Schmeal had no constitutional right to personal copies of discovery, "particularly when that discovery was already provided to his or her attorney." Marks, 297 Kan. at 149 .

2019The constitutional harmlessness test from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), applies.

2019The constitutional harmlessness test from Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967), applies.

2019Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error will not or did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., when there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , Syl. ¶ 3, 430 P.3d 11 (2018).

2019Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error will not or did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., when there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , Syl. ¶ 3, 430 P.3d 11 (2018).

2018Prosecutorial error during a trial is harmless if the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Chandler , 307 Kan. 657 , Syl. ¶¶ 6, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

2018Prosecutorial error during a trial is harmless if the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Chandler , 307 Kan. 657 , Syl. ¶¶ 6, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

2016And because the constitutional harmlessness test of Chapman is both mandated by the dictates of due process and more stringent than our statutory standard, we have routinely put our focus on the Chapman standard because "'the State necessarily meets the lower statutory standard under K.S.A. 60-261 if it meets the higher constitutional standard.'" State v. Crawford, 300 Kan. 740, 746 , 334 P.3d 311 (2014). 24 After 12 years of application, we can now identify the "punitive" aspect of Tosh— extended from the concerns about gross and flagrant conduct and prosecutorial ill will recited in Thompson

2016Ed. 2d 321 (1958); Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. at 242 .) Our own court has long summarized, articulated, and followed the constitutional harmlessness test from Chapman as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2014If the constitutional error requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction, it is unnecessary to conduct the nonconstitutional harmlessness analysis. 298 Kan. at 837 .

2014This court begins with the constitutional harmlessness analysis when both the constitutional and nonconstitutional errors arise from the same acts and omissions. 298 Kan. at 837 .