hmiting instruction in Kansas

17 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2011 0 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Gunbygreen kan · 2006 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2011 2 sentences 2011Therefore, the lack of a K.S.A. 60-455 analysis and a hmiting instruction did not amount to clear error and did not require reversal. 282 Kan. at 59 . 2010See K.S.A. 60-261; State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , 144 P.3d 647 (2006) (applying a harmless error analysis to the failure to provide a hmiting instruction when K.S.A. 60-455 evidence is admitted at trial).	1	4
State v. Blygreen kan · 1974 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2006 2 sentences 2006See State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 175-76 , 523 P.2d 397 (1974) (evidence disclosing another criminal offense which has a direct hearing on and relation to tire commission of the offense itself is not governed by K.S.A. 60-455 and is admissible without a hmiting instruction). 2006See State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 175-76 , 523 P.2d 397 (1974) (evidence disclosing another criminal offense which has a direct hearing on and relation to tire commission of the offense itself is not governed by K.S.A. 60-455 and is admissible without a hmiting instruction).	1	2
Bruton v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1968 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011Bruton, 391 U.S. at 137 (“Despite the concededly clear instructions to the jury to disregard Evans’ inadmissible hearsay evidence inculpating [the defendant], in the context of a joint trial we cannot accept limiting instructions as an adequate substitute for [the defendant’s] constitutional right of cross-examination.”). 2011Bruton, 391 U.S. at 137 (“Despite the concededly clear instructions to the jury to disregard Evans’ inadmissible hearsay evidence inculpating [the defendant], in the context of a joint trial we cannot accept limiting instructions as an adequate substitute for [the defendant’s] constitutional right of cross-examination.”).	1	1
State v. Crusegreen kan · 1923 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006See Cruse, 112 Kan. at 496 (failure to limit use of evidence to prove motive).	1	1
State v. Smithgreen kan · 1999 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993). 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993).	1	1
State v. Rossgreen kan · 2006 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 2 sentences 2006See State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 887-88 , 127 P.3d 249 (2006) (concluding that a limiting instruction cured the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence that the defendant and one of defendant’s witnesses were members of the same gang). 2006See State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 887-88 , 127 P.3d 249 (2006) (concluding that a limiting instruction cured the prejudicial effect of admitting evidence that the defendant and one of defendant’s witnesses were members of the same gang).	1	1
United States v. Millergreen · 1997 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 679 (2d Cir. 1997) (denial of severance upheld because jury verdict acquitting 6 of 7 defendants on at least 1 count showed jury heeded limiting instruction); United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (denial of severance upheld because jury’s acquittal of one codefendant showed that jury could follow Hmiting instruction); United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 413 (6th Cir. 2000) (denial of severance upheld because fact that jury found defendant not guilty on 10 counts and acquitted codefendants on other counts showed that jury was a	1	1
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee/ (99-1003) v. Jack William Tocco, (98-2312/2426)/ Cross-Appelleegreen ca6 · 2000 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 679 (2d Cir. 1997) (denial of severance upheld because jury verdict acquitting 6 of 7 defendants on at least 1 count showed jury heeded limiting instruction); United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (denial of severance upheld because jury’s acquittal of one codefendant showed that jury could follow Hmiting instruction); United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 413 (6th Cir. 2000) (denial of severance upheld because fact that jury found defendant not guilty on 10 counts and acquitted codefendants on other counts showed that jury was a	1	1
United States v. Mirandagreen ca5 · 2001 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 679 (2d Cir. 1997) (denial of severance upheld because jury verdict acquitting 6 of 7 defendants on at least 1 count showed jury heeded limiting instruction); United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 439 (5th Cir. 2001) (denial of severance upheld because jury’s acquittal of one codefendant showed that jury could follow Hmiting instruction); United States v. Tocco, 200 F.3d 401, 413 (6th Cir. 2000) (denial of severance upheld because fact that jury found defendant not guilty on 10 counts and acquitted codefendants on other counts showed that jury was a	1	1
State v. Redfordgreen kan · 1988 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000See State v. Redford, 242 Kan. 658, 666 , 750 P.2d 1013 (1988). 2000See State v. Redford, 242 Kan. 658, 666 , 750 P.2d 1013 (1988).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Reid green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2009Carapezza, 286 Kan. at 998 (quoting State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , Syl. ¶ 5, 186 P.3d 713 [2008]). 2009Carapezza, 286 Kan. at 998 (quoting State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , Syl. ¶ 5, 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).	2	2008–2009
State v. Wells green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2011State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 1226-27 , 221 P.3d 561 (2009). 2011State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 1226-27 , 221 P.3d 561 (2009).	1	2011–2011
State v. Davis green kan · 2007 1 sentence 2010Standard of Review “In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] ‘ “ ‘If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error ev	1	2010–2010
State v. Davis green kan · 2007 1 sentence 2010Standard of Review “In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] ‘ “ ‘If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error ev	1	2010–2010
State v. Boggs green kan · 2008 2 sentences 2010State v. Roggs, 287 Kan. 298 , Syl. ¶ 4, 197 P.3d 441 (2008). 2010State v. Roggs, 287 Kan. 298 , Syl. ¶ 4, 197 P.3d 441 (2008).	1	2010–2010
State v. Horn neutral kanctapp · 2008 1 sentence 2010However, the Court of Appeals opined that the omission of such an instruction, which was not requested by the defense, was not clearly erroneous in light of its determination that there was other, overwhelming, evidence of a fiduciary relationship. 40 Kan.	1	2010–2010
State v. Carapezza green kan · 2008 1 sentence 2009Carapezza, 286 Kan. at 998 (quoting State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494 , Syl. ¶ 5, 186 P.3d 713 [2008]).	1	2009–2009
State v. Shirley green kan · 2004 2 sentences 2008Reid, 286 Kan. at 513 . “ Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Shirley, 277 Kan. 659, 666 , 89 P.3d 649 (2004). 2008Reid, 286 Kan. at 513 . “ Instructions are clearly erroneous only if the reviewing court is firmly convinced there is a real possibility that the jury would have rendered a different verdict if the error had not occurred.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Shirley, 277 Kan. 659, 666 , 89 P.3d 649 (2004).	1	2008–2008
State v. Falke green kan · 1985 2 sentences 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993). 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993).	1	2006–2006
State v. Walker green kan · 1993 2 sentences 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993). 2006See State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 235 , 993 P.2d 1213 (1999) (no prejudice from refusal to sever where trial court instructed jury before evidence of co-defendant’s prior bad acts, that such evidence was admissible only as to that defendant); State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 677 , 703 P.2d 1362 (1985), disapproved of on other grounds State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 279 , 845 P.2d 1 (1993).	1	2006–2006
State v. Rinck green kan · 1995 1 sentence 2000In making its decision, the Rinck court noted that the defendant’s record was not mentioned any further during the trial and the trial court offered to give a hmiting instruction, but the offer was declined. 256 Kan. at 853-54 .	1	2000–2000

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (13) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (7) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-447 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 60-407 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3427 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4636 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3204 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

KS 17 (2000–2011) AR 2 (1997–1997) CT 2 (2005–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check