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 , 153 P.3d 1252 (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 , 235 P.3d 436 (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 , 153 P.3d 1252 (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 , 235 P.3d 436 (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).

2022State v. Marshall, 303 Kan. 438, 445 , 362 P.3d 587 (2015). 39 "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 prejudice that could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or instruction, resulting in an injustice?" Ward, 292 Kan. at 551 .

2019The 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 , Syl. ¶ 3, 256 P.3d 801 (2011).

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 , 153 P.3d 1252 (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 , 235 P.3d 436 (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 , 153 P.3d 1252 (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 , 235 P.3d 436 (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).

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

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

2015The approach in this step is consistent with our well-established standard of reviewing motions for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. 295 Kan. at 764 (citing State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , 277 P.3d 1111 [2012]) (decision to grant new trial has traditionally been considered under the no-reasonable-person-would-agree prong of the abuse of discretion standard); see also State v. Mosher, 299 Kan. 1, 3 , 319 P.3d 1253 (2014) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 [2012]) (“Judicial discretion can be abused in three ways: [1] if

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).

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

2009State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 425-26 , 153 P.3d 497 (2007); State v. Mathis, 281 Kan. 99, 103-04 , 130 P.3d 14 (2006).

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).

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).

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.

2024"A trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to the 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." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl. ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see also State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 595 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016).

2024"A trial court's determination as to the existence of a Brady violation is reviewed de novo with deference to the 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." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl. ¶ 13, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012); see also State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 595 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2016).

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]).

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).

2024In State v. Morley, 312 Kan. 702 , 479 P.3d 928 (2021), the Kansas Supreme Court clarified the framework for applying the abuse of discretion standard to review of departure decisions, stating: "[A]ppellate review of the departure decision should follow a three-step framework: (1) determine whether the sentencing court's nonstatutory factor can be a mitigating factor as a matter of law under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6815(c); (2) if it can, then decide whether that nonstatutory factor's existence is supported by the record; and (3) if so, then determine whether the sentencing court acted reasonably

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.

2020When reviewing under an abuse of discretion standard, "the question is whether the extent of the sentencing court's durational departure is consistent with the 'enacted purposes and principles of [the] sentencing guidelines' and 'proportionate to the severity of the crime of conviction and the offender's criminal history.'" Favela, 259 Kan. at 244 .

2011Such a question is subject to an abuse of discretion standard, which is defined as consistent with the "`enacted purposes and principles of [the] sentencing guidelines'" and "`proportionate to the severity of the crime of conviction and the offender's criminal history.'" Favela, 259 Kan. at 219 , 911 P.2d 792 (quoting K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4719[b][1]).

2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]).

2016There, we held that an appellate court reviews a district courts determination of materiality de novo and tire assessment of probative value under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.]’” State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 427 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828, 857 , 295 P.3d 1020 [2013]).