impact standard in Kansas

2025"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 (2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377 , 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).

2025Thus, the "'first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one "in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible."'" 320 Kan. at 173 (quoting State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 [2019]).

2025"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 (2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377 , 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).

2025"The first element of this analysis ultimately affects the last one 'in that whether a party has preserved an issue for review will have an impact on the standard by which we determine whether an error is reversible.'" State v. Ross, 310 Kan. 216 , 223, 445 P.3d 726 (2019) (quoting State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 377 , 353 P.3d 1108 [2015]).

2021While the strength of the evidence against the defendant may secondarily impact this analysis one way or the other, it must not become the primary focus of the inquiry.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 598, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

2020While the strength of the evidence against the defendant may secondarily impact this analysis one way or the other, it must not become the primary focus of the inquiry.'" State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. 591 , 598, 448 P.3d 479 (2019) (quoting Sherman, 305 Kan. at 111).

2024Because "'[a]lthough PIK Crim. 2d 52.02 does not specifically address the burden of proof when an affirmative defense is asserted, it does state the general rule that the State has the burden; the defendant never has to prove himself not guilty.'" Cooperwood, 282 Kan. at 581 (quoting Crabtree, 248 Kan. at 40 ).

2024Because "'[a]lthough PIK Crim. 2d 52.02 does not specifically address the burden of proof when an affirmative defense is asserted, it does state the general rule that the State has the burden; the defendant never has to prove himself not guilty.'" Cooperwood, 282 Kan. at 581 (quoting Crabtree, 248 Kan. at 40 ).

2022"When assessing prejudice, '[t]he focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.'" State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 411, 486 P.3d 551 (2021).

2021Where a defendant preserves an objection, "any error is reversible only if this court determines that there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 562, 478 P.3d 324 (2020).

2018United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. , 310 U.S. 150 , 240, 60 S.Ct. 811 , 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940) ; Sherman , 305 Kan. at 111 , 378 P.3d 1060 ("The focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.

2018United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. , 310 U.S. 150 , 240, 60 S.Ct. 811 , 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940) ; Sherman , 305 Kan. at 111 , 378 P.3d 1060 ("The focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.

2018"Prejudice can exist even in a strong case." Chandler , 307 Kan. at 679 , 414 P.3d 713 ; see Sherman , 305 Kan. at 111 , 378 P.3d 1060 ("The focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.

2018"Prejudice can exist even in a strong case." Chandler , 307 Kan. at 679 , 414 P.3d 713 ; see Sherman , 305 Kan. at 111 , 378 P.3d 1060 ("The focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.

2016This defective warrant issue arises under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which means we must apply the constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2016This defective warrant issue arises under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which means we must apply the constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2015Although this rule initially was viewed as providing some guarantee of the genuineness and seriousness of a bystander’s alleged emotional distress, it since has been abandoned in nearly every jurisdiction as both over and under inclusive. [[Image here]] “Instead, beginning with the seminal California case of Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 , 441 P.2d 912 , 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (1968), nearly three fourths of the states have adopted some form of what has come to be known as the rule of reasonable foreseeability.

2015Although this rule initially was viewed as providing some guarantee of the genuineness and seriousness of a bystander’s alleged emotional distress, it since has been abandoned in nearly every jurisdiction as both over and under inclusive. [[Image here]] “Instead, beginning with the seminal California case of Dillon v. Legg, 68 Cal. 2d 728 , 441 P.2d 912 , 69 Cal. Rptr. 72 (1968), nearly three fourths of the states have adopted some form of what has come to be known as the rule of reasonable foreseeability.

2008We reaffirm the role the impact rule plays as a safeguard against unduly speculative claims.” 850 So. 2d at 481 .

2008We reaffirm the role the impact rule plays as a safeguard against unduly speculative claims." 850 So.2d at 481 .

1972The impact of this rule on the precise question under consideration was dealt with many years ago in State v. Plamondon, 75 Kan. 269 , 89 Pac. 23 .

1972The impact of this rule on the precise question under consideration was dealt with many years ago in State v. Plamondon, 75 Kan. 269 , 89 Pac. 23 .