abuse of discretion standard in Kansas

2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]."' Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47 , 144 P.3d 647 [2006]). "'[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 507-09 , 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).

2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]."' Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47 , 144 P.3d 647 [2006]). "'[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 507-09 , 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).

2026But in Shadden the Supreme Court held that simply applying an abuse of discretion standard to the first factor is no longer appropriate because the admissibility of evidence involves a multistep evidentiary standard, which can involve de novo review or other standards depending on the applicable evidentiary rule or principle. 290 Kan. at 817 .

2020"On appeal, the question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard." State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

2025A. Standard of review "When an appellate court is considering whether a sentencing court erred in granting or denying departure based on a nonstatutory mitigating factor, the reviewing court applies an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Morley, 312 Kan. 702 , Syl. ¶ 1, 479 P.3d 928 (2021).

2025A. Standard of review "When an appellate court is considering whether a sentencing court erred in granting or denying departure based on a nonstatutory mitigating factor, the reviewing court applies an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Morley, 312 Kan. 702 , Syl. ¶ 1, 479 P.3d 928 (2021).

2026We review the question of whether evidence is probative under an abuse of discretion standard. 314 Kan. at 533.

2024Appellate courts review the question of whether evidence is probative under an abuse of discretion standard. 314 Kan. at 533.

2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]."' Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47 , 144 P.3d 647 [2006]). "'[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 507-09 , 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).

2018To establish relevance, there must be some material or logical connection between the asserted facts and the inference or result they are intended to establish. [Citation omitted]."' Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39, 47 , 144 P.3d 647 [2006]). "'[T]he question of whether evidence is probative is judged under an abuse of discretion standard; materiality is judged under a de novo standard.' Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817 (citing State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 507-09 , 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).

2010See State v. Rowell, 256 Kan. 200, 208 , 883 P.2d 1184 (1994).

2010See State v. Rowell, 256 Kan. 200, 208 , 883 P.2d 1184 (1994).

2024This court evaluates a district court's grant or denial of a departure sentence using an abuse of discretion standard established in State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, 324 , 342 P.3d 935 (2015).

2024This court evaluates a district court's grant or denial of a departure sentence using an abuse of discretion standard established in State v. Jolly, 301 Kan. 313, 324 , 342 P.3d 935 (2015).

2026An abuse of discretion occurs when: (1) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court; (2) the ruling is based on an error of law; or (3) the exercise of discretion is based on an error of fact. 12 "'Applying the abuse of discretion standard of review [to a motion for mistrial], an appellate court focuses on the two questions analyzed by the trial court and asks: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding if there was a fundamental failure in the proceeding? and (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding whether the conduct resulted in p

2026An abuse of discretion occurs when: (1) no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court; (2) the ruling is based on an error of law; or (3) the exercise of discretion is based on an error of fact. 12 "'Applying the abuse of discretion standard of review [to a motion for mistrial], an appellate court focuses on the two questions analyzed by the trial court and asks: (1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding if there was a fundamental failure in the proceeding? and (2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when deciding whether the conduct resulted in p

2015The abuse of discretion standard is well known: “Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, i.e., if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion; or (3) is based on an error of fact, i.e., if substantial competent evidence does not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (citing State v. Gonza

2015The abuse of discretion standard is well known: “Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, i.e., if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion; or (3) is based on an error of fact, i.e., if substantial competent evidence does not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (citing State v. Gonza

2024See State v. Reeves, 54 Kan.

2023State v. Reeves, 54 Kan. App. 2d 644 , 648, 403 P.3d 655 (2017).

2015Hill, 290 Kan. at 366 ; State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 984 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002), overmled in part on other grounds by State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 325 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Perkins, 248 Kan. 760, 767 , 811 P.2d 1142 (1991); State v. Soles, 224 Kan. 698, 700 , 585 P.2d 1032 *861 (1978).

2015Hill, 290 Kan. at 366 ; State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 984 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002), overmled in part on other grounds by State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520 , 102 P.3d 445 (2004); State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 325 , 875 P.2d 257 (1994); State v. Perkins, 248 Kan. 760, 767 , 811 P.2d 1142 (1991); State v. Soles, 224 Kan. 698, 700 , 585 P.2d 1032 *861 (1978).

2009See State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 425 , 153 P.3d 497 (2007).

2009State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 425-26; State v. Kirby, 272 Kan. 1170, 1192 , 39 P.3d 1 (2002).

2026See, e.g., State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 236 , 144 P.3d 634 (2006) (explaining that when a question of law arises under an abuse of discretion standard, the court exercises unlimited review over that question of law).

2026See, e.g., State v. Gary, 282 Kan. 232, 236 , 144 P.3d 634 (2006) (explaining that when a question of law arises under an abuse of discretion standard, the court exercises unlimited review over that question of law).

2022See State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3 , 319 P.3d 1253 (2014) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review non-KSGA sentences; noting a district court abuses its discretion by acting unreasonably).

2022See State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3 , 319 P.3d 1253 (2014) (applying an abuse of discretion standard to review non-KSGA sentences; noting a district court abuses its discretion by acting unreasonably).

2009The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” ’ (Emphasis added.) 279 Kan. at 332 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 135 L.

2009The abuse-of-discretion standard includes review to determine that the discretion was not guided by erroneous legal conclusions.” ’ (Emphasis added.) 279 Kan. at 332 (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 , 135 L.

2012Assisting the Jury in Ascertaining Guilt or Innocence Citing State v. White, 279 Kan. 326, 332 , 109 P.3d 1199 (2005), which was a case that stated the abuse of discretion standard in terms similar to the second prong of the Ward standard, Brown contends the trial court committed a legal error as part of its analysis that evidence of Brown’s date of birth would assist the jury in ascertaining Brown’s guilt or innocence.

2012Assisting the Jury in Ascertaining Guilt or Innocence Citing State v. White, 279 Kan. 326, 332 , 109 P.3d 1199 (2005), which was a case that stated the abuse of discretion standard in terms similar to the second prong of the Ward standard, Brown contends the trial court committed a legal error as part of its analysis that evidence of Brown’s date of birth would assist the jury in ascertaining Brown’s guilt or innocence.

2026In State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 510 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held "that a trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to a trial court's findings of fact, but the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." The defendant bears the burden of proving that perjured testimony was given.

2026In State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 510 , 277 P.3d 1111 (2012), the Kansas Supreme Court held "that a trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to a trial court's findings of fact, but the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion for new trial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." The defendant bears the burden of proving that perjured testimony was given.

2017This court's abuse of discretion standard is well known: 14 "'"Judicial discretion is abused if judicial action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, i.e., if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) is based on an error of law, i.e., if the discretion is guided by an erroneous legal conclusion; or (3) is based on an error of fact, i.e., if substantial competent evidence does not support a factual finding on which a prerequisite conclusion of law or the exercise of discretion is based. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d

2017Consequently, we will apply an abuse of discretion standard of review. "'A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if the action (1) is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) is based on an error of law; or (3) is based on an error of fact.' State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 1232 , 308 P.3d 1258 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied [ 565 U.S. 1221 ] [2012]).

2008In the recent case of State v. McGee, 280 Kan. 890, 894 , 126 P.3d 1110 (2006), this court discussed the standard of review applicable when an indigent defendant requests the appointment of different trial counsel: “A trial court’s refusal to appoint new trial counsel is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard.

2008In the recent case of State v. McGee, 280 Kan. 890, 894 , 126 P.3d 1110 (2006), this court discussed the standard of review applicable when an indigent defendant requests the appointment of different trial counsel: “A trial court’s refusal to appoint new trial counsel is reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard.

2017Standard of Review Generally, "a district judge's refusal to appoint new counsel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 449 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) 43 (citing State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 158 , Syl. ¶ 4, 169 P.3d 1096 [2007]).

2017Standard of Review Generally, "a district judge's refusal to appoint new counsel is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 449 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) 43 (citing State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 158 , Syl. ¶ 4, 169 P.3d 1096 [2007]).

2011Citing State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008) (Jessica's Law), and State v. Blackmon, 285 Kan. 719, 724 , 176 P.3d 160 (2008) (guidelines sentence), the State asserts that an appellate court evaluates a district court decision on whether mitigators constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure from Jessica's Law under an abuse of discretion standard.

2011Citing State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 , Syl. ¶ 5, 194 P.3d 1195 (2008) (Jessica's Law), and State v. Blackmon, 285 Kan. 719, 724 , 176 P.3d 160 (2008) (guidelines sentence), the State asserts that an appellate court evaluates a district court decision on whether mitigators constitute substantial and compelling reasons for departure from Jessica's Law under an abuse of discretion standard.

2023He focuses on one line from the Crosswinds report, arguing that it set forth conditions on his competency and that the district court failed to ensure that those conditions were met at all critical stages of the case. 3 Standard of review "An appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether a district court made the correct decision regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial. 'Judicial discretion can be abused in three ways: (1) if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) if the judicial action is based on an error of

2023He focuses on one line from the Crosswinds report, arguing that it set forth conditions on his competency and that the district court failed to ensure that those conditions were met at all critical stages of the case. 3 Standard of review "An appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether a district court made the correct decision regarding a defendant's competency to stand trial. 'Judicial discretion can be abused in three ways: (1) if no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court; (2) if the judicial action is based on an error of

2021On appeal, "we review the decision under an abuse of discretion standard—that is, to determine if the trial court made an error of law, made an error of fact, or was otherwise arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable." Gonzalez-Sandoval, 309 Kan. at 126-27; see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge.

2021On appeal, "we review the decision under an abuse of discretion standard—that is, to determine if the trial court made an error of law, made an error of fact, or was otherwise arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable." Gonzalez-Sandoval, 309 Kan. at 126-27; see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge.