party benefitting error in Kansas

2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized 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., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011).

2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), harmless error standard provides that "'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 31 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) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 )." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1050-51 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014).

2024If any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional in nature, the party benefitting from the error "'must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect . . . did not affect the outcome.'" State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 , 551-52, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).

2024If any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional in nature, the party benefitting from the error "'must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect . . . did not affect the outcome.'" State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 , 551-52, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).

2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must 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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]).

2020To answer this question, we apply a constitutional standard that "'"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 565 U.S. 1221 .'" Wright I, 305 Kan. at 1179.

2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"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 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 .

2018"Please refer to the instructions provided to you." Standard of Review When the same acts or omissions violated both the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights, an appellate court applies "only the more rigorous of the two harmless error standards-the federal constitutional harmless error standard. [Citations omitted.] Under the federal standard, '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.' " State v. Verser , 2

2025State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 940 , 13 270 P.3d 1165 (2012); see also K.S.A. 60-261 (erroneous admission of evidence is harmless unless it affects the defendant's substantial rights).

2025State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 940 , 13 270 P.3d 1165 (2012); see also K.S.A. 60-261 (erroneous admission of evidence is harmless unless it affects the defendant's substantial rights).

2020Four factors help determine whether a district court's communication with the jury outside the presence of a defendant is harmless under the constitutional standard: "(1) the overall strength of the case against the defendant; (2) whether either party objected to the manner in which the judge handled the communication; (3) whether the judge's communication with the jury 'concerned a critical aspect of the trial or rather involved an innocuous and insignificant matter,' and also how the communication was conveyed to the jury; and (4) the ability of any posttrial remedy to 'mitigate the constitu

2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"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 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 .

2017Several factors are significant in determining whether this kind of assumed error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: "(1) the overall strength of the case against the defendant; (2) whether either party objected to the manner in which the judge handled the communication; (3) whether the judge's communication with the jury 'concerned a critical aspect of the trial or rather involved an innocuous and insignificant matter,' and also how the communication was conveyed to the jury; and (4) the ability of any posttrial remedy to 'mitigate the constitutional error.'" Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 -

2017Several factors are significant in determining whether this kind of assumed error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt: "(1) the overall strength of the case against the defendant; (2) whether either party objected to the manner in which the judge handled the communication; (3) whether the judge's communication with the jury 'concerned a critical aspect of the trial or rather involved an innocuous and insignificant matter,' and also how the communication was conveyed to the jury; and (4) the ability of any posttrial remedy to 'mitigate the constitutional error.'" Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 -

2024Under those procedures, the State may introduce the journal entry of the prior conviction "into the record [but outside the presence of the jury], thereby protecting the State's interest in proving all of the elements of the defendant's status." Mitchell, 285 Kan. at 1077 . 17 A constitutional error is harmless only if the party benefitting from the error demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt 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. Corey, 304 Kan. 721,

2024Under those procedures, the State may introduce the journal entry of the prior conviction "into the record [but outside the presence of the jury], thereby protecting the State's interest in proving all of the elements of the defendant's status." Mitchell, 285 Kan. at 1077 . 17 A constitutional error is harmless only if the party benefitting from the error demonstrates "beyond a reasonable doubt 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. Corey, 304 Kan. 721,

2022"Under this analysis, we are concerned only with undue or unfair prejudice," and the State, as the party benefitting from the error, has the burden of demonstrating harmlessness. 296 Kan. at 895 .

2018The party benefitting from the error has the burden to demonstrate harmlessness. 296 Kan. at 895 , 299 P.3d 268 .

2016Under the constitutional test, the party benefitting from the error must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the 14 verdict. [Williams,] 299 Kan. at 541 ." State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242, 251 , 373 P.3d 781 (2016).

2016Under the constitutional test, the party benefitting from the error must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the 14 verdict. [Williams,] 299 Kan. at 541 ." State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242, 251 , 373 P.3d 781 (2016).

2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), harmless error standard provides that "'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 31 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) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 )." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1050-51 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014).

2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), harmless error standard provides that "'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 31 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) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 )." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1050-51 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014).

2015The constitutional, or 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), harmless error standard provides that " '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 [ 565 U.S.

2012As stated in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011): "If the fundamental failure does infringe upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the trial court should apply the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in 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), in which case the 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 l

2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must 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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]).

2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must 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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]).

2021But an error admitting evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights is a constitutional error that "may only be declared harmless when the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." State v. James, 301 Kan. 898, 910 , 349 P.3d 457 (2015) (holding reversibility for erroneous admission of evidence from defendant's cell phone in violation of the Fourth Amendment turned on the harmless- error test applicable to constitutional errors, not the more lenient test for

2021But an error admitting evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights is a constitutional error that "may only be declared harmless when the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." State v. James, 301 Kan. 898, 910 , 349 P.3d 457 (2015) (holding reversibility for erroneous admission of evidence from defendant's cell phone in violation of the Fourth Amendment turned on the harmless- error test applicable to constitutional errors, not the more lenient test for

2020State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 95 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd on other grounds 577 U.S. ___ , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2020State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 95 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd on other grounds 577 U.S. ___ , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2019In State v. Ingham , 308 Kan. 1466 , 1476, 430 P.3d 931 (2018), the Kansas Supreme Court held: "If the error infringes upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the 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) ]." However, if the error does not implicat

2019Ward , 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6 [ 256 P.3d 801 ]." Ingham , 308 Kan. at 1476, 430 P.3d 931 .

2016Williams, 299 Kan. at 541 ." State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242, 251-52 , 373 P.3d 781 (2016).

2016Under the constitutional test, the party benefitting from the error must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the 14 verdict. [Williams,] 299 Kan. at 541 ." State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242, 251 , 373 P.3d 781 (2016).

2012State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. ¶ 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6.

2012State v. Hall, 292 Kan. 841 , Syl. ¶ 15, 257 P.3d 272 (2011); Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6.

2026An appellate court will use the same analysis. . . .' [State v. ]Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011)]." Belone, 295 Kan. at 504 .

2026If any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional in nature, the party benefitting from the error must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect did not affect the outcome." State v. Zongker, 319 Kan. 411 , 433, 555 P.3d 698 (2024).

2026Under our cumulative error framework, "[i]f any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional in nature"—such as judicial comment errors—"the party benefitting from the error must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative effect did not affect the outcome." State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718 , 741, 559 P.3d 792 (2024).

2026A panel of our court considered a similar error in State v. Womelsdorf, 47 Kan.

2024The challenger must also prove that the severance denial resulted in prejudice, but the party benefitting from the error has the burden of demonstrating harmless error— or lack of prejudice. 302 Kan. at 617-18 . 12 If two or more defendants were tried together without the requirements of K.S.A. 22-3202(3) having been met, "'a misjoinder results and is an absolute ground for reversal and separate trials.'" State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 231, 236 , 83 P.3d 182 (2004).

2024The challenger must also prove that the severance denial resulted in prejudice, but the party benefitting from the error has the burden of demonstrating harmless error— or lack of prejudice. 302 Kan. at 617-18 . 12 If two or more defendants were tried together without the requirements of K.S.A. 22-3202(3) having been met, "'a misjoinder results and is an absolute ground for reversal and separate trials.'" State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 231, 236 , 83 P.3d 182 (2004).