Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
132 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 39 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Plummergreen2 sentences2026Under "K.S.A. 22-3414(3), a lesser included offense instruction is only required 'where there is some evidence which would reasonably justify a conviction of some lesser included crime.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). 2026Under "K.S.A. 22-3414(3), a lesser included offense instruction is only required 'where there is some evidence which would reasonably justify a conviction of some lesser included crime.'" State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). | 4 | 18 |
State v. Lowegreen2 sentences2026"To determine whether a lesser included offense instruction is factually appropriate, a court must consider whether there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, emanating from whatever source and proffered by whichever party, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for that lesser included crime." State v. Lowe, 317 Kan. 713 , Syl. ¶ 1, 718, 538 P.3d 1094 (2023); see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3) ("In cases where there is some evidence which would reasonably justify a conviction of some lesser included crime as provided in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-510 2026"To determine whether a lesser included offense instruction is factually appropriate, a court must consider whether there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, emanating from whatever source and proffered by whichever party, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for that lesser included crime." State v. Lowe, 317 Kan. 713 , Syl. ¶ 1, 718, 538 P.3d 1094 (2023); see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3) ("In cases where there is some evidence which would reasonably justify a conviction of some lesser included crime as provided in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-510 | 3 | 5 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Roberts, 314 Kan. 835 , 852, 503 P.3d 227 (2022) (holding that a district court has a duty to provide a legally and factually appropriate instruction); State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 13 585, 599, 363 P.3d 1101 (2016) (holding that a lesser included offense instruction is not foreclosed even if it is inconsistent with either the evidence presented by the defendant or the defendant's theory of the case). 2024See State v. Roberts, 314 Kan. 835 , 852, 503 P.3d 227 (2022) (holding that a district court has a duty to provide a legally and factually appropriate instruction); State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 13 585, 599, 363 P.3d 1101 (2016) (holding that a lesser included offense instruction is not foreclosed even if it is inconsistent with either the evidence presented by the defendant or the defendant's theory of the case). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Haberleingreen2 sentences2024The lesser included offense instruction was factually appropriate. "'A legally appropriate lesser included offense instruction must be given when there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, emanating from whatever source and proffered by whichever party, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for that lesser included crime.'" Couch, 317 Kan. at 591; see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 204 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (instruction for second-degree intentional murder as lesser included offense of first-degree premeditated murder was factually appropri 2024The lesser included offense instruction was factually appropriate. "'A legally appropriate lesser included offense instruction must be given when there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, emanating from whatever source and proffered by whichever party, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for that lesser included crime.'" Couch, 317 Kan. at 591; see State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195, 204 , 290 P.3d 640 (2012) (instruction for second-degree intentional murder as lesser included offense of first-degree premeditated murder was factually appropri | 2 | 4 |
State v. Carrgreen2 sentences2018In State v. Carr , 300 Kan. 1 , Syl. ¶ 3, 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed. 2d 535 (2016), this court held the ruling in Gleason eliminated any need to address the argument that a lesser included offense instruction for felony murder was supported by the evidence admitted at trial. 2018In State v. Carr , 300 Kan. 1 , Syl. ¶ 3, 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed. 2d 535 (2016), this court held the ruling in Gleason eliminated any need to address the argument that a lesser included offense instruction for felony murder was supported by the evidence admitted at trial. | 2 | 3 |
State v. McLinngreen2 sentences2026See State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 , 318, 409 P.3d 1 (2018). 2026See State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 , 318, 409 P.3d 1 (2018). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2026See State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280 , 1298, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019); State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , 1408, 430 P.3d 11 (2018); see also State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 , 721, 449 P.3d 429 (2019) (generally discussing lesser included offense instructions). 2026In James, the Kansas Supreme Court made clear that while a person may have "intended the underlying act of shooting," such intent is "inadequate to rule out an instruction on reckless second-degree murder." 309 Kan. at 1299. 14 Looking at the evidence most favorably to Medina-Castro, it was likely factually appropriate to include a lesser included offense instruction on both reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 173, 459 P.3d 165 (2020). 2024See State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 173, 459 P.3d 165 (2020). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Cavanessgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Warrengreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2014To make this determination, the reviewing court “must necessarily look at whether it was legally and factually appropriate for the district court to give a lesser included offense instruction.” 295 Kan. at 521 (citing State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 [2012]). 2013We further explained how to conduct the first step of the analysis when the issue is whether it was clearly erroneous to fail to give a lesser included offense instruction, stating: “[W]e must necessarily look first at whether it was legally and factually appropriate for the district court to give a lesser included offense instruction.” Williams, 295 Kan. at 521 (citing State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , Syl. ¶ 1, 283 P.3d 202 [2012]). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Holleygreen2 sentences2026State v. Martinez, 317 Kan. 151 , 171, 527 P.3d 531 (2023). 2026State v. Martinez, 317 Kan. 151 , 171, 527 P.3d 531 (2023). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Angelogreen2 sentences2026In State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 280 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008), the defense counsel took an "all-or- nothing" approach at trial and asked the court not to give a lesser included offense instruction. 2026In State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 280 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008), the defense counsel took an "all-or- nothing" approach at trial and asked the court not to give a lesser included offense instruction. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2026K.S.A. 22-3414(3); see State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 432 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014) (a district court does not err in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions on a crime which is unsupported by evidence); State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1, 15 , 988 P.2d 722 (1999) (a lesser included offense instruction is factually appropriate provided the evidence does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense). 2026K.S.A. 22-3414(3); see State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 432 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014) (a district court does not err in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions on a crime which is unsupported by evidence); State v. Williams, 268 Kan. 1, 15 , 988 P.2d 722 (1999) (a lesser included offense instruction is factually appropriate provided the evidence does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Sebagreen2 sentences2026"A lesser included offense instruction must be provided when there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for a lesser included crime." State v. Garcia-Garcia, 309 Kan. 801 , 820, 441 P.3d 52 (2019) (citing State v. Seba, 305 Kan. 185 , 204, 380 P.3d 209 [2016]); see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3). 2026"A lesser included offense instruction must be provided when there is some evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant, that would reasonably justify the defendant's conviction for a lesser included crime." State v. Garcia-Garcia, 309 Kan. 801 , 820, 441 P.3d 52 (2019) (citing State v. Seba, 305 Kan. 185 , 204, 380 P.3d 209 [2016]); see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Beckergreen2 sentences2026See State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 , 182, 459 P.3d 173 (2020). 2026See State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 , 182, 459 P.3d 173 (2020). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Rodriguez, 295 Kan. 1146 , Syl. ¶ 3, 289 P.3d 85 (2012) ("When a defendant does not seek the inclusion of a lesser included offense instruction at trial, that failure does not prevent appellate review if the error is clearly erroneous."). 2026See State v. Rodriguez, 295 Kan. 1146 , Syl. ¶ 3, 289 P.3d 85 (2012) ("When a defendant does not seek the inclusion of a lesser included offense instruction at trial, that failure does not prevent appellate review if the error is clearly erroneous."). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Roberts, 314 Kan. 835 , 852, 503 P.3d 227 (2022) (holding that a district court has a duty to provide a legally and factually appropriate instruction); State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 13 585, 599, 363 P.3d 1101 (2016) (holding that a lesser included offense instruction is not foreclosed even if it is inconsistent with either the evidence presented by the defendant or the defendant's theory of the case). 2024See 317 Kan. at 720 (citing State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 599 , 363 P.3d 1101 [2016] holding that a lesser included offense instruction is not foreclosed even if it is inconsistent with either the evidence presented by the defense or the theory advanced by the defense). 21 The district court erred, then, by failing to give the simple assault and simple battery instructions. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wadegreen2 sentences2018See State v. Wade , 295 Kan. 916 , 924, 287 P.3d 237 (2012) ("Wade proposed a lesser included offense instruction on voluntary manslaughter and unequivocally objected to its omission during the instructions conference, arguing to the court the grounds upon which he believed the instruction was proper. *547 The issue is fully preserved for our review."); see also State v. Brown , 300 Kan. 565 , 585, 331 P.3d 797 (2014) ("There is no dispute that [the defendant] properly preserved this issue for appellate review by requesting a voluntary manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense of s 2018See State v. Wade , 295 Kan. 916 , 924, 287 P.3d 237 (2012) ("Wade proposed a lesser included offense instruction on voluntary manslaughter and unequivocally objected to its omission during the instructions conference, arguing to the court the grounds upon which he believed the instruction was proper. *547 The issue is fully preserved for our review."); see also State v. Brown , 300 Kan. 565 , 585, 331 P.3d 797 (2014) ("There is no dispute that [the defendant] properly preserved this issue for appellate review by requesting a voluntary manslaughter instruction as a lesser included offense of s | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gentrygreen2 sentences2026See State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280 , 1298, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019); State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , 1408, 430 P.3d 11 (2018); see also State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 , 721, 449 P.3d 429 (2019) (generally discussing lesser included offense instructions). 2026See State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280 , 1298, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019); State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , 1408, 430 P.3d 11 (2018); see also State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 , 721, 449 P.3d 429 (2019) (generally discussing lesser included offense instructions). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Quallsgreen2 sentences2026In some cases, "a defendant's statements may be sufficient by themselves to require issuing a lesser included offense instruction." State v. Qualls, 297 Kan. 61, 70 , 298 P.3d 311 (2013). 6 Imperfect Self-defense (Voluntary Manslaughter) "Under K.S.A. 21-5404(a)(2), voluntary manslaughter under an imperfect self-defense theory occurs when an individual knowingly kills a human being 'upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified use of deadly force.'" State v. Thille, 320 Kan. 435 , 438, 570 P.3d 18 (2025). 2026In some cases, "a defendant's statements may be sufficient by themselves to require issuing a lesser included offense instruction." State v. Qualls, 297 Kan. 61, 70 , 298 P.3d 311 (2013). 6 Imperfect Self-defense (Voluntary Manslaughter) "Under K.S.A. 21-5404(a)(2), voluntary manslaughter under an imperfect self-defense theory occurs when an individual knowingly kills a human being 'upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified use of deadly force.'" State v. Thille, 320 Kan. 435 , 438, 570 P.3d 18 (2025). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Owensgreen2 sentences2023When the giving of or failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is challenged on appeal, we apply a multi-step process when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: "'First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instructio 2023When the giving of or failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is challenged on appeal, we apply a multi-step process when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: "'First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instructio | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Coopergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Tahahgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hoffmangreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Houstongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Phillipsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ngan Phamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maestasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Greengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garcia-Martinezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Scheuermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brazzlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sinzogangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gonzalezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2023When the giving of or failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is challenged on appeal, we apply a multi-step process when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: "'First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instructio 2023When the giving of or failure to give a lesser included offense instruction is challenged on appeal, we apply a multi-step process when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: "'First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instructio | 6 | 2012–2023 |
State v. Simmons
green
2 sentences2012Specifically, citing to a prior case with the same name, State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 741 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006), the State asserts that the complete and correct standard is that a “criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence as long as . . . the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant’s theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with that theory.” In other words, the State contends that the appropriateness of a lesser included offense instruction is measured against the defendant’s theory of defens 2012Specifically, citing to a prior case with the same name, State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 741 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006), the State asserts that the complete and correct standard is that a “criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence as long as . . . the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant’s theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with that theory.” In other words, the State contends that the appropriateness of a lesser included offense instruction is measured against the defendant’s theory of defens | 6 | 2009–2012 |
Kansas v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2018In State v. Carr , 300 Kan. 1 , Syl. ¶ 3, 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed. 2d 535 (2016), this court held the ruling in Gleason eliminated any need to address the argument that a lesser included offense instruction for felony murder was supported by the evidence admitted at trial. 2018In State v. Carr , 300 Kan. 1 , Syl. ¶ 3, 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 633 , 193 L.Ed. 2d 535 (2016), this court held the ruling in Gleason eliminated any need to address the argument that a lesser included offense instruction for felony murder was supported by the evidence admitted at trial. | 3 | 2016–2018 |
State v. McCaslin
red
2 sentences2014Such an inquiry is closely akin to the sufficiency of the evidence review frequently preformed by appellate courts in criminal cases where ‘ “the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (quoting State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 710 , 175 P.3d 861 [2008]).” 295 Kan. at 161-62. 2014Such an inquiry is closely akin to the sufficiency of the evidence review frequently preformed by appellate courts in criminal cases where ‘ “the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (quoting State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 710 , 175 P.3d 861 [2008]).” 295 Kan. at 161-62. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Drayton
green
2 sentences2014Such an inquiry is closely akin to the sufficiency of the evidence review frequently preformed by appellate courts in criminal cases where ‘ “the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (quoting State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 710 , 175 P.3d 861 [2008]).” 295 Kan. at 161-62. 2014Such an inquiry is closely akin to the sufficiency of the evidence review frequently preformed by appellate courts in criminal cases where ‘ “the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011) (quoting State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 710 , 175 P.3d 861 [2008]).” 295 Kan. at 161-62. | 3 | 2012–2014 |
State v. Sutherland
green
2 sentences2002“If evidence at trial merits a lesser included offense instruction, ‘a court is under an affirmative duty to give an instruction on a lesser included offense . . . even if a defendant fails to request it. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 336, 940 P.2d 42 (1997) (quoting State v. Southerland, 248 Kan. 96, 101 , 804 P.2d 970 [1991]). 2002“If evidence at trial merits a lesser included offense instruction, ‘a court is under an affirmative duty to give an instruction on a lesser included offense . . . even if a defendant fails to request it. [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Orr, 262 Kan. 312, 336, 940 P.2d 42 (1997) (quoting State v. Southerland, 248 Kan. 96, 101 , 804 P.2d 970 [1991]). | 3 | 1992–2002 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences1991Based on State v. Hill, 242 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 744 P.2d 1228 (1987) (an instruction on a lesser included offense is “unnecessary where the defendant’s testimony precludes a conviction for the lesser offense”), the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on simple battery because if the defendant were believed, he would not be guilty of aggravated battery or simple battery. 1991Based on State v. Hill, 242 Kan. 68, 73-74 , 744 P.2d 1228 (1987) (an instruction on a lesser included offense is “unnecessary where the defendant’s testimony precludes a conviction for the lesser offense”), the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on simple battery because if the defendant were believed, he would not be guilty of aggravated battery or simple battery. | 3 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Little
green
2 sentences2026See State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1264 , 136 P.3d 919 (2006) (concluding defendant was not entitled to an instruction on attempted aggravated kidnapping because the crime of kidnapping was completed before the defendant fled the scene, regardless of the victims managing to free themselves); State v. Jackson, 238 Kan. 793, 800 , 714 P.2d 1368 (1986) (finding defendant was not entitled to instruction on attempted aggravated kidnapping because he lacked sufficient control over the victim because the evidence showed the victim was under his control); State v. Little, 26 Kan. App. 2d 713, 718 , 994 2026See State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1264 , 136 P.3d 919 (2006) (concluding defendant was not entitled to an instruction on attempted aggravated kidnapping because the crime of kidnapping was completed before the defendant fled the scene, regardless of the victims managing to free themselves); State v. Jackson, 238 Kan. 793, 800 , 714 P.2d 1368 (1986) (finding defendant was not entitled to instruction on attempted aggravated kidnapping because he lacked sufficient control over the victim because the evidence showed the victim was under his control); State v. Little, 26 Kan. App. 2d 713, 718 , 994 | 2 | 2006–2026 |
State v. Louis
green
2 sentences2022Cf. State v. Louis, 305 Kan. 453 , 459, 384 P.3d 1 (2016) (evaluating failure to give arguably factually appropriate lesser included offense instruction under harmlessness paradigm based on "overwhelming evidence" of the greater offense that would eliminate any "reasonable probability" of a conviction on the lesser offense). 2019We recently reaffirmed that decision in Louis, when we concluded that it was not legally appropriate to offer a lesser included offense instruction on reckless involuntary manslaughter because "attempt requires specific intent to commit the object crime, so 'to establish the crime of attempted involuntary manslaughter the person would be required to specifically intend to commit an unintentional crime[, and] [t]his is a logical impossibility.'" Louis, 305 Kan. at 461-62 (quoting State v. Collins, 257 Kan. 408, 419 , 893 P.2d 217 [1995]). | 2 | 2019–2022 |
Spaziano v. Florida
red
2 sentences2020As we later explained in Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 455 , 104 S. Ct. 3154, 3159 , 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984), '[t]he absence of a lesser included offense instruction increases the risk that the jury will convict . . . simply to avoid setting the defendant free. . . . 2020As we later explained in Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447, 455 , 104 S. Ct. 3154, 3159 , 82 L.Ed.2d 340 (1984), '[t]he absence of a lesser included offense instruction increases the risk that the jury will convict . . . simply to avoid setting the defendant free. . . . | 2 | 2017–2020 |
| State v. Woods green | 2 | 2016–2020 |
| State v. Dupree green | 2 | 2017–2019 |
| State v. Knox green | 2 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Carr green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| State v. Soto green | 2 | 2016–2017 |
| Bingham v. United States green | 2 | 2012–2016 |
| Cameron v. Kansas neutral | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Cameron green | 2 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Pierce green | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Clark green | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Horn red | 2 | 2008–2012 |
| State v. Bailey red | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Jones green | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Davis green | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Davis green | 2 | 2009–2012 |
| State v. Boone green | 2 | 2005–2010 |
| State v. Valentine yellow | 2 | 2003–2005 |
| State v. Cummings green | 2 | 1997–2003 |
| State v. Ochoa yellow | 2 | 1996–2003 |
| State v. Coleman green | 2 | 1995–2000 |
| State v. Thille green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Haygood green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Blansett green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Garcia-Garcia green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Hardwick neutral | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Kelly green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Turner green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Morfitt green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.