wording instruction in Kansas

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2024Under the invited error doctrine, a defendant cannot challenge an instruction on appeal, even as clearly erroneous under K.S.A. 22-3414(3), "when there has been an on-the- 3 record agreement to the wording of the instruction at trial." State v. Willis, 312 Kan. 127 , 131, 475 P.3d 324 (2020).

2019A judge cannot compel a jury to convict, even if it finds all elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt." 301 Kan. at 164 .

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2018We then cited cases in which this court had held the invited-error doctrine applies when a party (1) agrees on the record to the wording in the instruction, (2) requests the instruction, or (3) agrees to or requests a judge's specific response to a jury question. 306 Kan. at 248-49 , 393 P.3d 1031 (citing Jones , 295 Kan. at 811-12 , 286 P.3d 562 ; State v. Peppers , 294 Kan. 377 , 393, 276 P.3d 148 [ (2012) ] ; State v. Adams , 292 Kan. 151 , 163-65, 254 P.3d 515 [ (2011) ] ).

2017In State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016), we held the invited error doctrine did not bar the defendant from arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense.

2017In State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016), we held the invited error doctrine did not bar the defendant from arguing on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense.

2017See, e.g., State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 554 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (party may not invite error and then complain of that error as ground for reversing); State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 459 , 255 P.3d 19 (2011) (when district court gives defendants requested instruction to jury, defendant cannot complain the requested instruction was error on appeal); State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan.

2017See, e.g., State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 554 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (party may not invite error and then complain of that error as ground for reversing); State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 459 , 255 P.3d 19 (2011) (when district court gives defendants requested instruction to jury, defendant cannot complain the requested instruction was error on appeal); State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan.

2017See, e.g., State v. Miller, 293 Kan. 535, 554 , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (party may not invite error and then complain of that error as ground for reversing); State v. Bailey, 292 Kan. 449, 459 , 255 P.3d 19 (2011) (when district court gives defendants requested instruction to jury, defendant cannot complain the requested instruction was error on appeal); State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan.

2012Instruction that Another Trial Would he a Burden on Both Sides Including the language “another trial would be a burden on both sides” in an Allen-type instruction constitutes error, because the language is misleading, inaccurate, and confusing, State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), and Peppers argues that his conviction should be reversed because “the evidence against [him] was hardly overwhelming, and the erroneous instruction veiy likely had an impact on the jury’s verdict.” But a defendant cannot challenge an instruction, even as clearly erroneous under K.S.A. 22-3414(3),

2012Instruction that Another Trial Would he a Burden on Both Sides Including the language “another trial would be a burden on both sides” in an Allen-type instruction constitutes error, because the language is misleading, inaccurate, and confusing, State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), and Peppers argues that his conviction should be reversed because “the evidence against [him] was hardly overwhelming, and the erroneous instruction veiy likely had an impact on the jury’s verdict.” But a defendant cannot challenge an instruction, even as clearly erroneous under K.S.A. 22-3414(3),

2011This wording has been used by this court in several recent decisions, including Leaper, 291 Kan. at 96-97 , 238 P.3d 266 , and State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 283-85 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008).

2011This wording has been used by this court in several recent decisions, including Leaper, 291 Kan. at 96-97 , 238 P.3d 266 , and State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 283-85 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008).

2011Yet, the wording of the standard was different; the Court of Appeals stated that Ward "failed to establish that her substantial rights were prejudiced by the error." State v. Ward, No. 99,549, 2009 WL 454947, at *5 (Kan.App. 2009) (unpublished opinion) (citing State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 425-26 , 153 P.3d 497 [2007]).

2011Yet, the wording of the standard was different; the Court of Appeals stated that Ward "failed to establish that her substantial rights were prejudiced by the error." State v. Ward, No. 99,549, 2009 WL 454947, at *5 (Kan.App. 2009) (unpublished opinion) (citing State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 425-26 , 153 P.3d 497 [2007]).

2009State v. Gallegos, 286 Kan. 869, 877 , 190 P.3d 226 (2008).

2009State v. Gallegos, 286 Kan. 869, 877 , 190 P.3d 226 (2008).

1994“The opportunity to mislead the jury or cause it to become unduly influenced by specific wording in an instruction which it has been told is ‘the law that applies to this case’ compels us to reach the conclusion that using tire additional language objected to by DeVries was erroneous and requires reversal.” 13 Kan.

1994According to the Court of Appeals, “[t]he previous Supreme Court opinions where the additional wording of this instruction was considered arose out of cases where no objection *406 to the instruction was made at trial.” 13 Kan.

1989The instruction given was in conformity to PIK Crim. 2d 56.25. *665 In State v. Redford, 242 Kan. 658 , 750 P.2d 1013 (1988), the defendant raised a similar argument.

1989The instruction given was in conformity to PIK Crim. 2d 56.25. *665 In State v. Redford, 242 Kan. 658 , 750 P.2d 1013 (1988), the defendant raised a similar argument.

1989However, under the explicit wording of Francis that “general instructions as to the prosecution’s burden and the defendant’s presumption of innocence do not dissipate the error in the challenged portion of the instructions,” 471 U.S. at 320 , the wording of instruction No. 13 does not cure the deficiencies in instruction No. 6.

1989In Mullarkey , the exclusion pertained to loss covered by “Workmen’s Compensation Insurance.” 266 So. 2d at 693 .

1974See, also, Rooks v. American Brass Company, 263 F. 2d 166 (6th Cir., 1959); Erick Rios Bridoux v. Eastern Air Lines, 214 F. 2d 207 (D.

1968The instruction given follows closely the wording of the instruction approved in State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271, 276 , 398 P. 2d 339 .

1968The instruction given follows closely the wording of the instruction approved in State v. Wright, 194 Kan. 271, 276 , 398 P. 2d 339 .

1934(Eckl v. Sinclair Refining Co., 133 Kan. 285 , 299 Pac. 588 .) But that never has been held in any case in which the claimant specifically denied that what he was doing was a claim for compensation.

1934(Eckl v. Sinclair Refining Co., 133 Kan. 285 , 299 Pac. 588 .) But that never has been held in any case in which the claimant specifically denied that what he was doing was a claim for compensation.