139 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 53 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences2026In doing so, we apply the constitutional harmless error inquiry set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2026In doing so, we apply the constitutional harmless error inquiry set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 10 | 59 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2024Alternatively, the State argues that even if the district 9 court erred by refusing to consider Dixon's new durational departure motion at his resentencing hearing, the district court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the constitutional harmless error standard explained in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 2024Alternatively, the State argues that even if the district 9 court erred by refusing to consider Dixon's new durational departure motion at his resentencing hearing, the district court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the constitutional harmless error standard explained in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 7 | 41 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). 2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Bridgesgreen2 sentences2015In conducting this analysis, the standard of constitutional harmlessness must be met to avoid a finding of reversible error. 298 Kan. at 1050-51 ; see also State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1012-13 , 306 P.3d 244 (2013) (once the State meets the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the lower statutory standard in K.S.A. 60-261 is necessarily met). 2015In conducting this analysis, the standard of constitutional harmlessness must be met to avoid a finding of reversible error. 298 Kan. at 1050-51 ; see also State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1012-13 , 306 P.3d 244 (2013) (once the State meets the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the lower statutory standard in K.S.A. 60-261 is necessarily met). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2015In State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013), after noting both the pre-Williams and Williams statements of the test, the court said that it did “not discern a practical difference between the stated tests.” Accordingly, the court said that it had “opt[ed] to omit the heal possibility’ language to avoid any confu sion with the constitutional harmless error test,” which provides that an error is harmless “where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” 296 Kan. at 631 . 2015In State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013), after noting both the pre-Williams and Williams statements of the test, the court said that it did “not discern a practical difference between the stated tests.” Accordingly, the court said that it had “opt[ed] to omit the heal possibility’ language to avoid any confu sion with the constitutional harmless error test,” which provides that an error is harmless “where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.” 296 Kan. at 631 . | 5 | 7 |
State v. Santos-Vegagreen2 sentences2015See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the ‘real possibility’ language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).” Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 .’ State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 596 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014).” State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). 2014See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the “real possibility” language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).’ Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 .” State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 596 , 331 P.3d 815 , (2014). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Lowrancegreen2 sentences2016See State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274, 282 , 312 P.3d 328 (2013) (when State meets constitutional harmlessness test it necessarily also meets lower statutory harmlessness test as well). 2016See State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274, 282 , 312 P.3d 328 (2013) (when State meets constitutional harmlessness test it necessarily also meets lower statutory harmlessness test as well). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bolze-Sanngreen2 sentences2020"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 . 2017As in State v. Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. 198, 216 , 352 P.3d 511 (2015), "[b]ecause we agree with the State that the error was harmless, we will also move directly to a harmless error review." Therefore, we will assume error and apply the constitutional harmless error standard from Chapman v. 25 California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 2 | 5 |
State v. De La Torregreen2 sentences2015See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the ‘real possibility’ language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).” Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 .’ State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 596 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014).” State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). 2015See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting court’s decision to omit the ‘real possibility’ language from Voyles test to avoid confusion with the constitutional harmless error test).” Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 .’ State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 596 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014).” State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
Bingham v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014Under the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman , “ ‘tire 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). 2014“Under the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman , ‘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), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 11 |
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Thornton, 312 Kan. 829 , 832, 481 P.3d 1212 (2021). 2026State v. Thornton, 312 Kan. 829 , 832, 481 P.3d 1212 (2021) (applying constitutional harmless error standard to evidence obtained in violation of Fourth Amendment). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2026State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 273, 485 P.3d 622 (2021). 2025See State v. Gallegos, 313 Kan. 262 , 277, 485 P.3d 622 (2021) (issues not adequately briefed are deemed waived or abandoned). 21 The Kansas Supreme Court routinely reviews violations of the right to be present at a critical stage of the proceedings under the constitutional harmless error standard. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bowengreen2 sentences2020See State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339, 357 , 323 P.3d 853 (2014). 2020See State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339, 357 , 323 P.3d 853 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
Maryland v. Craiggreen1 sentence2025When the time comes, I caution this court against applying any form of "'interest balancing'" where the constitutional text "simply does not permit it," as "[w]e are not free to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of clear and explicit constitutional guarantees, and then to adjust their meaning to comport with our findings." 497 U.S. at 870 (Scalia, J., dissenting). 58 Despite my disagreement with the majority's decision to decline to explore this paramount question, were we to conclude that admission of Zaitshik's remote testimony did violate Younger's section 10 right to a face-to-face confronta | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2025We note that Wabaunsee argues that we should apply a constitutional harmless error test—which requires a party benefitting from an error to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial—based on the United States Supreme Court's holding in Ramos that the constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 590 U.S. at 93. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Andrew, 301 Kan. 36, 46-47 , 340 P.3d 476 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andrewgreen1 sentence2024See State v. Andrew, 301 Kan. 36, 46-47 , 340 P.3d 476 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
| Carella v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| – State v. Williams –green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lewisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Conwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Kansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Alexander v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Armstronggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Herbelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Castleberrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rushen v. Spaingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Palmer v. Hendricksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Milton v. Farwell, Wardengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Danielsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chambers v. Mississippigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lackeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Crawford v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Seymour v. United States
green
2 sentences2012As 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 2011If 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 light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibili | 18 | 2005–2026 |
Neder v. United States
green
2 sentences2026Our Supreme Court found that this error was analogous to failing to submit an element of a charged crime to the jury and, because it was not a structural error, it was subject to the constitutional harmless error test from Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. 2026Our Supreme Court found that this error was analogous to failing to submit an element of a charged crime to the jury and, because it was not a structural error, it was subject to the constitutional harmless error test from Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. | 4 | 2004–2026 |
Berger v. New York
green
2 sentences2012As 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 2011If 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 light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibili | 4 | 2011–2026 |
State v. Verser
green
2 sentences2020"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 . 2016See 302 Kan. at 216 . *768 As we recently said: “Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if "’tire 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.’ ” Verser, 299 Kan. at 789 (quoting Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 4 | 2015–2020 |
State v. Corey
green
2 sentences2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). 2026"When a defendant's right to be present is violated, an appellate court determines whether the error requires reversal by applying the constitutional harmless error standard." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 740 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016); see State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 968 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013). | 3 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2024Where, as here, the State benefitted from the errors, it has the burden of establishing the errors were harmless.' State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 (2020)." State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 172-73, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022). 2022Where, as here, the State benefitted from the errors, it has the burden of establishing the errors were harmless." State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 (2020). | 3 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Kleypas
green
2 sentences2017In Kleypas, this court recognized the "subtle differences" between applying the constitutional harmless error test to prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt phase proceeding and during the penalty-phase proceeding. 272 Kan. at 1084 . 2017In Kleypas, we noted "subtle differences" between applying the constitutional harmless error test to prosecutorial misconduct during the guilt-phase proceeding and the penalty-phase proceeding. 272 Kan. at 1084-88 . | 3 | 2005–2017 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2026Where a defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial is implicated, an error must be assessed under the constitutional harmless error standard which asks 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.'" State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 164, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022); see also Carr, 314 Kan. at 773. 2024Where, as here, the State benefitted from the errors, it has the burden of establishing the errors were harmless.' State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 (2020)." State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 172-73, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2024Specifically, Boone claims he had a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and a right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which were violated when Ivener testified as to his credibility—an issue for jury determination. 9 Under the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the State bears the burden to establish "'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. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 162 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d 2024Specifically, Boone claims he had a right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and a right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which were violated when Ivener testified as to his credibility—an issue for jury determination. 9 Under the higher constitutional harmless error standard, the State bears the burden to establish "'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. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 162 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 565 , 256 P.3d | 2 | 2022–2024 |
State v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2024Moore begins by asking us to adopt a more stringent constitutional harmless error standard from State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010) (adopting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. 2024Moore begins by asking us to adopt a more stringent constitutional harmless error standard from State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176 , 224 P.3d 553 (2010) (adopting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9-10 , 119 S. Ct. 1827 , 144 L. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Tully
green
2 sentences2022Tully, 293 Kan. at 205 . 2020Tully, 293 Kan. at 205 ; State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569-70 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). | 2 | 2020–2022 |
State v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2008Henderson, 284 Kan. at 294 , 160 P.3d 776 . 2007However, before reversing and remanding the defendant's conviction, we applied the constitutional harmless error standard from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), which requires us to find the error harmless if we possess "a firm belief beyond a reasonable doubt that an error of constitutional magnitude had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial." Henderson, 160 P.3d at 792 . | 2 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Jordan
green
1 sentence2025A charging document satisfies due process and notice requirements if "'the defendant has an opportunity to meet and answer the State's evidence and prevent double jeopardy.'" State v. Jordan, 317 Kan. 628 , 646, 537 P.3d 443 (2023). 22 When, as here, the defendant asserts the third type of charging document defect— raising due process and notice issues—the constitutional harmless error test established in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Lindemuth green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Burnett green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Lovely green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Redick green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Pribble green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Fisher green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. McGinnes green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Mann green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Goodson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Killings green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Waller green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Belone green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Dull green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Quarels v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Daniel Ortega v. Michael O'leary, Warden green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Archie D. Wright v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Holman green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Reyna green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Swanigan green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Delaware v. Van Arsdall green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Simpson v. Illinois green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Allen v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Bell green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.