proceeding must disregard any error in Kansas

2001The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect die substantial rights of die parties.” Smallwood, 264 Kan. at 80 (citing K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964 , Syl. ¶ 6, 880 P.2d 1244 [1994]).

2001The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect die substantial rights of die parties.” Smallwood, 264 Kan. at 80 (citing K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964 , Syl. ¶ 6, 880 P.2d 1244 [1994]).

2007Before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]'" 272 Kan. at 416-17, 34 P.3d 42 .

2004State v. Leitner, 272 Kan. 398 , Syl. ¶ 7, 34 P.3d 42 (2001); State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964 , Syl. ¶ 6, 880 P.2d 1244 (1994).

1996State v. Getz, 250 Kan. 560, 569 , 830 P.2d 5 (1992).” 255 Kan. at 983 .

1996State v. Getz, 250 Kan. 560, 569 , 830 P.2d 5 (1992).” 255 Kan. at 983 .

2005The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” *840 The harmless error rule under K.S.A. 60-261 echoes the federal harmless error rule from Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 , “which requires a court to determine that an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in that it had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” Tosh, 278 Kan. at 96 .

2004The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” It also echoes the federal harmless error rule declared in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 17 L.

2010The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 99-100 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006) (Errors in admitting evidence must be reviewed to determine “whether the admission of the evidence [1] was inconsistent with substantial justice; [2] affected the substantial rights of defendant; and [3] had any likelihood of changing the results at trial.”).

2010The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 99-100 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006) (Errors in admitting evidence must be reviewed to determine “whether the admission of the evidence [1] was inconsistent with substantial justice; [2] affected the substantial rights of defendant; and [3] had any likelihood of changing the results at trial.”).

2008Applying this rule to the erroneous admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence in State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 94 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004), this court addressed whether the admission of the evidence (1) was inconsistent with substantial justice; (2) affected the substantial rights of the defendant; and (3) had any likelihood of changing the results at trial.

2008Applying this rule to the erroneous admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence in State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 94 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004), this court addressed whether the admission of the evidence (1) was inconsistent with substantial justice; (2) affected the substantial rights of the defendant; and (3) had any likelihood of changing the results at trial.

2007The court at every state of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. " (Emphasis added.) As commentator Ediger suggests in the nonitalicized portion of his article's excerpt provided above, we have construed the statute to mean that "[e]rrors that do not affirmatively cause prejudice to the substantial rights of a complaining party do not require reversal when substantial justice has been done." Peltier, 249 Kan. at 426 , 819 P.2d 628 .

2007The court at every state of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. " (Emphasis added.) As commentator Ediger suggests in the nonitalicized portion of his article's excerpt provided above, we have construed the statute to mean that "[e]rrors that do not affirmatively cause prejudice to the substantial rights of a complaining party do not require reversal when substantial justice has been done." Peltier, 249 Kan. at 426 , 819 P.2d 628 .

2005The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” *840 The harmless error rule under K.S.A. 60-261 echoes the federal harmless error rule from Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 , “which requires a court to determine that an error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in that it had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” Tosh, 278 Kan. at 96 .

2002The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999).

2002The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See State v. Mullins, 267 Kan. 84, 97 , 977 P.2d 931 (1999).

2001The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect die substantial rights of die parties.” Smallwood, 264 Kan. at 80 (citing K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964 , Syl. ¶ 6, 880 P.2d 1244 [1994]).

1997State v. Ricks, 257 Kan. 435 , Syl. ¶ 1, 894 P.2d 191 (1995).

1997State v. Ricks, 257 Kan. 435 , Syl. ¶ 1, 894 P.2d 191 (1995).

1997State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176, 183 , 558 P2d 93 (1976).

1997State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176, 183 , 558 P2d 93 (1976).

1995The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Similarly, K.S.A. 60-2105 directs: “The appellate court shall disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears upon the whole record that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court; and in any case pending before it, the court shall render such final judgment as it deem

1995The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Similarly, K.S.A. 60-2105 directs: “The appellate court shall disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears upon the whole record that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court; and in any case pending before it, the court shall render such final judgment as it deem

1995The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Similarly, K.S.A. 60-2105 directs: “The appellate court shall disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears upon the whole record that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court; and in any case pending before it, the court shall render such final judgment as it deem

1995The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Similarly, K.S.A. 60-2105 directs: “The appellate court shall disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears upon the whole record that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court; and in any case pending before it, the court shall render such final judgment as it deem

1994In Webb , we recognized that “[m]any jurisdictions have held that noncompliance with a mandatory statute is, of course, error but, unless prejudice to the defendant is shown, not reversible error.” 242 Kan. at 525 .

1989The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that reversal is required only where the erroneous admission of evidence “is of such a nature as to affect the outcome of the trial and deny substantial justice.” State v. Walker, 239 Kan. 635 , Syl. ¶ 6, 722 P.2d 566 (1986).