accomplice instruction in Kansas

2001The failure to give an accomplice instruction is not reversible error if the defendant’s guilt is plain, DePriest, 258 Kan. at 606 , or if the judge provided another instruction which cautioned the jury about the *95 weight to be accorded testimonial evidence.

2001The DePriest court noted that in determining whether prejudicial error has occurred in the failure to give an accomplice instruction, courts generally look to the extent and importance of the accomplice testimony, as well as any corroborating testimony. 258 Kan. at 605 . *618 In this case, Berger’s testimony against Gholston and Burton’s testimony in DePriest was vitally important because in both cases the testimony linked the defendant to the crime.

2020Boeschling contends that "[l]abeling Osborn as an accomplice after the jury received information that he had committed and pled guilty to the same crimes heavily prejudiced" Boeschling because it "label[ed] the convicted criminal [as] his 'accomplice'" and "attached an inference that the statements were suspect." This court addressed Boeschling's precise concern in State v. Anthony, 242 Kan. 493, 498 , 749 P.2d 37 (1988). 12 In that case, defendant Billy Joe Anthony challenged the district judge's decision to give the same accomplice instruction with respect to Anthony's girlfriend's testimony

2020Boeschling contends that "[l]abeling Osborn as an accomplice after the jury received information that he had committed and pled guilty to the same crimes heavily prejudiced" Boeschling because it "label[ed] the convicted criminal [as] his 'accomplice'" and "attached an inference that the statements were suspect." This court addressed Boeschling's precise concern in State v. Anthony, 242 Kan. 493, 498 , 749 P.2d 37 (1988). 12 In that case, defendant Billy Joe Anthony challenged the district judge's decision to give the same accomplice instruction with respect to Anthony's girlfriend's testimony

2007On appeal, the defendant argued that, while it was not requested, the court should have given an accomplice instruction with regard to these two witnesses’ testimony. 267 Kan. at 62 .

2007This court rejected the defendant’s argument that an accomplice instruction was required, because the witnesses were not accomplices within the meaning of the instruction. 267 Kan. at 62-63 .

2007This court has explained that, “[a]s to the accomplice instruction, PIK Crim. 3d 52.18 defines an accomplice as one who testifies that he or she was involved in the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged.” State v. Abel, 261 Kan. 331, 336 , 932 P.2d 952 (1997), disapproved in part on other grounds State v. Mathenia, 262 Kan. 890, 898-99 , 942 P.2d 624 (1997).

2007This court has explained that, “[a]s to the accomplice instruction, PIK Crim. 3d 52.18 defines an accomplice as one who testifies that he or she was involved in the commission of the crime with which the defendant is charged.” State v. Abel, 261 Kan. 331, 336 , 932 P.2d 952 (1997), disapproved in part on other grounds State v. Mathenia, 262 Kan. 890, 898-99 , 942 P.2d 624 (1997).

2007In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 936 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

2007In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 936 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

2014Tapia, 295 Kan. at 997 ; State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 740 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006); see State v. Moody, 223 Kan. 699, 702 , 576 P.2d 637 (failure to give accomplice instruction can create trial error, particularly when die accomplice testimony is uncorroborated), cert. denied 439 U.S. 894 (1978).” Llamas, 298 Kan. at 265 .

2014Tapia, 295 Kan. at 997 ; State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 740 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006); see State v. Moody, 223 Kan. 699, 702 , 576 P.2d 637 (failure to give accomplice instruction can create trial error, particularly when die accomplice testimony is uncorroborated), cert. denied 439 U.S. 894 (1978).” Llamas, 298 Kan. at 265 .

2014Tapia, 295 Kan. at 997 ; State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 740 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006); see State v. Moody, 223 Kan. 699, 702 , 576 P.2d 637 (failure to give accomplice instruction can create trial error, particularly when die accomplice testimony is uncorroborated), cert. denied 439 U.S. 894 (1978).” Llamas, 298 Kan. at 265 .

2013Tapia, 295 Kan. at 997 ; State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 740 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006); see State v. Moody, 223 Kan. 699, 702 , 576 P.2d 637 (failure to give accomplice instruction can create trial error, particularly when the accomplice testimony is uncorroborated), cert. denied 439 U.S. 894 (1978).

2012State v. DePriest, 258 Kan. 596, 605 , 907 P.2d 868 (1995); Moore, 229 Kan. at 80-81 .

1985State v. Moore, 229 Kan. 73 , Syl. ¶¶ 1 and 2, 622 P.2d 631 (1981).

2007In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 936 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

2007In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 936 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

2021Liles contends a misstatement occurred because the prosecutor violated a "'constitutional limit on a court's ability to comment on a defendant's credibility in a jury instruction,'" which she argues must be done in a "neutral or balanced" manner without "'singl[ing] out the defendant as not to be believed.'" She relies on State v. Land, 14 Kan.

2012As we have explained, “it is important to remember that the purpose of requiring an objection is to allow the district court to correct an error, if one occurred. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1139 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010).

2012As we have explained, “it is important to remember that the purpose of requiring an objection is to allow the district court to correct an error, if one occurred. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1139 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010).

2012As we have explained, “it is important to remember that the purpose of requiring an objection is to allow the district court to correct an error, if one occurred. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132, 1139 , 221 P.3d 1105 (2009), cert. denied 130 S. Ct. 3410 (2010).

2011Criminal History Finally, Foster claims the use of his criminal history to enhance the sentencing penalty for his conviction constituted a violation of due process pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2011Criminal History Finally, Foster claims the use of his criminal history to enhance the sentencing penalty for his conviction constituted a violation of due process pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L.

2009Even when viewing the evidence in the light more favoring Tapia, as State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 131-32 , 130 P.3d 24 (2006), requires us to do, we find no error in the district court’s failure to give an accomplice instruction.

2009Even when viewing the evidence in the light more favoring Tapia, as State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 131-32 , 130 P.3d 24 (2006), requires us to do, we find no error in the district court’s failure to give an accomplice instruction.

2006In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 , 122 S.Ct. 2672 , 153 L.Ed.2d 845 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

2006In State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 , 122 S.Ct. 2672 , 153 L.Ed.2d 845 (2002), where Gholston was convicted of first-degree murder, this court again held that an accomplice instruction was not required where there was no evidence that the witness in question was an accomplice.

1997See State v. Thomas, 252 Kan. 564, 578-79 , 847 P.2d 1219 (1993); State v. Sanford, 237 Kan. 312, 315-16 , 699 P.2d 506 (1985).

1997See State v. Thomas, 252 Kan. 564, 578-79 , 847 P.2d 1219 (1993); State v. Sanford, 237 Kan. 312, 315-16 , 699 P.2d 506 (1985).

1997When considering the refusal of a trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350 , Syl. ¶ 4, 827 P.2d 733 (1992).” The trial court, in refusing to give the accomplice instruction, held: “First of all, on the defendant’s request to include an accomplice witness instruction, I agree with the state — that’s the reason I am not including this instruc *664 tion in the packet — that there is no evidence indicating that any witness that has testified for t

1997When considering the refusal of a trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350 , Syl. ¶ 4, 827 P.2d 733 (1992).” The trial court, in refusing to give the accomplice instruction, held: “First of all, on the defendant’s request to include an accomplice witness instruction, I agree with the state — that’s the reason I am not including this instruc *664 tion in the packet — that there is no evidence indicating that any witness that has testified for t

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).