prejudicial error in Kansas

2002The Bressman court agreed, finding that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the expert witness testimony because there was not a sufficient foundation to qualify the physician as an expert to give such an opinion since there was no showing that she was trained as an expert in psychiatry and that she had examined the complaining witness for the purpose of rendering a diagnosis as to whether she evidenced rape trauma syndrome. 236 Kan. at 304 , 689 P.2d 901 .

2002The Bressman court agreed, finding that the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the expert witness testimony because there was not a sufficient foundation to qualify the physician as an expert to give such an opinion since there was no showing that she was trained as an expert in psychiatry and that she had examined the complaining witness for the purpose of rendering a diagnosis as to whether she evidenced rape trauma syndrome. 236 Kan. at 304 , 689 P.2d 901 .

2017State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367, 378 , 203 P.3d 1261 (2009).

2017State v. Cofield, 288 Kan. 367, 378 , 203 P.3d 1261 (2009).

2016In Langley v. Byron Stout Pontiac, Inc., 208 Kan. 199, 202 , 491 P.2d 891 (1971), the court considered whether a prospective juror’s question during voir dire—’’’What about the insurance that we’ve been paying for?

2016In Langley v. Byron Stout Pontiac, Inc., 208 Kan. 199, 202 , 491 P.2d 891 (1971), the court considered whether a prospective juror’s question during voir dire—’’’What about the insurance that we’ve been paying for?

2014If violations did substantially influence this decision, or there is grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from such substantial influence, the violations cannot be deemed harmless.” (Emphasis added.) 487 U.S. at 263 .

2004Lumley, 266 Kan. at 959 .

2002The Bressman court recognized that under State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645 , 647 P.2d 1292 (1982), qualified expert psychiatric testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome is relevant and admissible.

2002The Bressman court recognized that under State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645 , 647 P.2d 1292 (1982), qualified expert psychiatric testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome is relevant and admissible.

2001In Massey , the court stated that the prosecutor’s prejudicial violation of an order in limine issued in a criminal trial is reversible error. 242 Kan. 252 , Syl. ¶ 5.

1995The State cites State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871 , 879 P.2d 620 (1994).

1995The State cites State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871 , 879 P.2d 620 (1994).

1978The fourth and most substantial issue raised by the appellants is that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it admitted in-custody statements, given by each defendant out of the hearing and presence of the other, for the reason that such statements violate the rule laid down in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 (1968), and for the further reason that such evidence is inadmissible hearsay.

1978The fourth and most substantial issue raised by the appellants is that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it admitted in-custody statements, given by each defendant out of the hearing and presence of the other, for the reason that such statements violate the rule laid down in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 (1968), and for the further reason that such evidence is inadmissible hearsay.

1973(State v. Bell, 206 Kan. 36 , 476 P. 2d 213 .) *255 Under the provisions of K.

1973(State v. Bell, 206 Kan. 36 , 476 P. 2d 213 .) *255 Under the provisions of K.

1970(See, State v. Way, 204 Kan. 375 , 461 P. 2d 820 ; State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475 , 449 P. 2d 515 .) Defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not allowing the defense to cross-examine two of the state’s witnesses and to call defense witnesses regarding the identity of the robber is without merit.

1970(See, State v. Way, 204 Kan. 375 , 461 P. 2d 820 ; State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475 , 449 P. 2d 515 .) Defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not allowing the defense to cross-examine two of the state’s witnesses and to call defense witnesses regarding the identity of the robber is without merit.

1970(See, State v. Way, 204 Kan. 375 , 461 P. 2d 820 ; State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475 , 449 P. 2d 515 .) Defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not allowing the defense to cross-examine two of the state’s witnesses and to call defense witnesses regarding the identity of the robber is without merit.

1970(See, State v. Way, 204 Kan. 375 , 461 P. 2d 820 ; State v. Walker, 202 Kan. 475 , 449 P. 2d 515 .) Defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error by not allowing the defense to cross-examine two of the state’s witnesses and to call defense witnesses regarding the identity of the robber is without merit.

1970(State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 42 , 468 P. 2d 74 .) Also lacking in- substance is the further contention that the court committed prejudicial error in allowing a detective to testify for the state after he had remained in the courtroom throughout the trial in violation of the court’s order for separation of all witnesses.

1970(State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 42 , 468 P. 2d 74 .) Also lacking in- substance is the further contention that the court committed prejudicial error in allowing a detective to testify for the state after he had remained in the courtroom throughout the trial in violation of the court’s order for separation of all witnesses.

1969We think the failure of the court to admonish the jury to disregard these remarks was error, even if the jury had retired from the room before the request was made.” (p. 575.) Prejudicial error was held to have resulted from abusive language in State v. Ryan, 141 Kan. 549 , 42 P. 2d 591 , where the court declared: “Defendant’s repeated and timely objections to the sort of argument just quoted were well taken.

1969We think the failure of the court to admonish the jury to disregard these remarks was error, even if the jury had retired from the room before the request was made.” (p. 575.) Prejudicial error was held to have resulted from abusive language in State v. Ryan, 141 Kan. 549 , 42 P. 2d 591 , where the court declared: “Defendant’s repeated and timely objections to the sort of argument just quoted were well taken.

1936In support of this contention defendant cites such cases as Murray v. Woodson County, 58 Kan. 1 , 48 Pac. 554 ; and Shouse v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co., 132 Kan. 108 , 294 Pac. 657 .

1936In support of this contention defendant cites such cases as Murray v. Woodson County, 58 Kan. 1 , 48 Pac. 554 ; and Shouse v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co., 132 Kan. 108 , 294 Pac. 657 .

1936In support of this contention defendant cites such cases as Murray v. Woodson County, 58 Kan. 1 , 48 Pac. 554 ; and Shouse v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co., 132 Kan. 108 , 294 Pac. 657 .

1936In support of this contention defendant cites such cases as Murray v. Woodson County, 58 Kan. 1 , 48 Pac. 554 ; and Shouse v. Consolidated Flour Mills Co., 132 Kan. 108 , 294 Pac. 657 .

1935In support of his contention, he relies on Madden v. The State, 1 Kan. 340 , where it was held that where opportunity for improper influences prejudicial to the accused is afforded, if the verdict is against him the presumption is the irregularity was prejudicial to him, and it is incumbent on the state to show lack of injury by reason thereof.

1934Therefore, you should banish from your mind any impressions which you may have received relating to this matter.” Appellant contends that obviously plaintiff’s counsel, previous to her being called as a witness, had instructed her not to testify to what defendant had said about having liability insurance, and notwithstanding this caution by her counsel plaintiff had persisted in injecting that matter into the testimony, and that this was prejudicial error, citing Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co., 132 Kan. 581 , 296 Pac. 737 ; Coffman v. Shearer, 140 Kan. 176 , 34 P. 2d 97 , and allied ca

1934Therefore, you should banish from your mind any impressions which you may have received relating to this matter.” Appellant contends that obviously plaintiff’s counsel, previous to her being called as a witness, had instructed her not to testify to what defendant had said about having liability insurance, and notwithstanding this caution by her counsel plaintiff had persisted in injecting that matter into the testimony, and that this was prejudicial error, citing Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co., 132 Kan. 581 , 296 Pac. 737 ; Coffman v. Shearer, 140 Kan. 176 , 34 P. 2d 97 , and allied ca

1934Therefore, you should banish from your mind any impressions which you may have received relating to this matter.” Appellant contends that obviously plaintiff’s counsel, previous to her being called as a witness, had instructed her not to testify to what defendant had said about having liability insurance, and notwithstanding this caution by her counsel plaintiff had persisted in injecting that matter into the testimony, and that this was prejudicial error, citing Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co., 132 Kan. 581 , 296 Pac. 737 ; Coffman v. Shearer, 140 Kan. 176 , 34 P. 2d 97 , and allied ca

1934Therefore, you should banish from your mind any impressions which you may have received relating to this matter.” Appellant contends that obviously plaintiff’s counsel, previous to her being called as a witness, had instructed her not to testify to what defendant had said about having liability insurance, and notwithstanding this caution by her counsel plaintiff had persisted in injecting that matter into the testimony, and that this was prejudicial error, citing Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co., 132 Kan. 581 , 296 Pac. 737 ; Coffman v. Shearer, 140 Kan. 176 , 34 P. 2d 97 , and allied ca

1914In Railway Co. v. Hammerlund, 70 Kan. 888 , 79 Pac. 152 , a similar question was asked and admitted over timely objections made by the defendant, and in the opinion it was said :■ “The impropriety of this proof is not debatable.

1914In Railway Co. v. Hammerlund, 70 Kan. 888 , 79 Pac. 152 , a similar question was asked and admitted over timely objections made by the defendant, and in the opinion it was said :■ “The impropriety of this proof is not debatable.

1894(Gleason v. Wilson, 48 Kas. 500 ; Landauer v. Mack, 57 N. W.