substance instruction in Kansas

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

2006However, "`[e]rror cannot be predicated on a district court's refusal to give a specific instruction where the instructions given cover and include the substance of the instruction refused.'" State v. Pink, 270 Kan. 728, 738 , 20 P.3d 31 (2001).

2006However, "`[e]rror cannot be predicated on a district court's refusal to give a specific instruction where the instructions given cover and include the substance of the instruction refused.'" State v. Pink, 270 Kan. 728, 738 , 20 P.3d 31 (2001).

1999State v. Cheeks, 253 Kan. 93 , 853 P.2d 655 (1993).

1999State v. Cheeks, 253 Kan. 93 , 853 P.2d 655 (1993).

1996In Stephens v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 746 P.2d 908 (Alaska 1987), the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment against Stephens, who filed suit against the state Department of Revenue, alleging malicious and negligent *14 prosecution.

1996The court stated: “It is the substance of the claim and not the language used in stating it which controls.” 517 F.2d at 1035 .

1996Notwithstanding that Brown couched his claim in terms of negligence of the officers, “[i]t is the substance of the claim and not the language used in stating it which controls.” Gaudet, 517 F.2d at 1035 .

1993In one of the cases cited by Kingsley on this issue, the following discussion occurs: “The trial court gave the substance of the standard premeditated murder instruction, PIK Crim. 2d 56.01, to which the court added the following: *772 ‘There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.’ Also, the trial court gave the following definition from PIK Crim. 2d 56.04(b), which reads in part: ‘Deliberately and with premeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand.’ ” State v. Patterson, 243 Kan. 262, 268 , 755 P.2d 551 (1988).

1993In one of the cases cited by Kingsley on this issue, the following discussion occurs: “The trial court gave the substance of the standard premeditated murder instruction, PIK Crim. 2d 56.01, to which the court added the following: *772 ‘There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.’ Also, the trial court gave the following definition from PIK Crim. 2d 56.04(b), which reads in part: ‘Deliberately and with premeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand.’ ” State v. Patterson, 243 Kan. 262, 268 , 755 P.2d 551 (1988).

1988The trial court gave the substance of the standard premeditated murder instruction, PIK Crim. 2d 56.01, to which the court added the following: “There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.” Also, the trial court gave the following definition from PIK Crim. 2d 56.04(b), which reads in part: “Deliberately and with premeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand.” Defendant relies on State v. Martinez, 223 Kan. 536, 537 , 575 *269 P.2d 30 (1978), where the trial court had instructed that “premeditation” means to have “thought of beforehand for any length

1988The trial court gave the substance of the standard premeditated murder instruction, PIK Crim. 2d 56.01, to which the court added the following: “There is no specific time element required to establish premeditation.” Also, the trial court gave the following definition from PIK Crim. 2d 56.04(b), which reads in part: “Deliberately and with premeditation means to have thought over the matter beforehand.” Defendant relies on State v. Martinez, 223 Kan. 536, 537 , 575 *269 P.2d 30 (1978), where the trial court had instructed that “premeditation” means to have “thought of beforehand for any length

1983Warren, 230 Kan. at 400 .

1982As we said in Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 224 Kan. 437 , 581 P.2d 372 (1978): “The refusal by the trial court to give a requested instruction does not result in reversible error when the substance of the instruction is contained in other instructions.” Syl. ¶ 5.

1982As we said in Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., 224 Kan. 437 , 581 P.2d 372 (1978): “The refusal by the trial court to give a requested instruction does not result in reversible error when the substance of the instruction is contained in other instructions.” Syl. ¶ 5.

1981Co., 227 Kan. 45 , there was no evidence of an independent tort; in Dold v. Sherow, 220 Kan. 350 , the defendant did not object to the substance of the instruction; in Service Oil Co. v. White, 218 Kan. 87 , no issue as to the propriety of the instructions was raised; and in Hess v. Jarboe, 201 Kan. 705 , no independent tortious act was alleged and none appeared in the evidence.

1981Co., 227 Kan. 45 , there was no evidence of an independent tort; in Dold v. Sherow, 220 Kan. 350 , the defendant did not object to the substance of the instruction; in Service Oil Co. v. White, 218 Kan. 87 , no issue as to the propriety of the instructions was raised; and in Hess v. Jarboe, 201 Kan. 705 , no independent tortious act was alleged and none appeared in the evidence.

1981Co., 227 Kan. 45 , there was no evidence of an independent tort; in Dold v. Sherow, 220 Kan. 350 , the defendant did not object to the substance of the instruction; in Service Oil Co. v. White, 218 Kan. 87 , no issue as to the propriety of the instructions was raised; and in Hess v. Jarboe, 201 Kan. 705 , no independent tortious act was alleged and none appeared in the evidence.

1981Co., 227 Kan. 45 , there was no evidence of an independent tort; in Dold v. Sherow, 220 Kan. 350 , the defendant did not object to the substance of the instruction; in Service Oil Co. v. White, 218 Kan. 87 , no issue as to the propriety of the instructions was raised; and in Hess v. Jarboe, 201 Kan. 705 , no independent tortious act was alleged and none appeared in the evidence.

1978(Noland v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 207 Kan. 72 , 483 P.2d 1029 [1971].) That was the substance of the instruction given to the jury.

1978(Noland v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 207 Kan. 72 , 483 P.2d 1029 [1971].) That was the substance of the instruction given to the jury.

1974(See State v. Brown, 203 Kan. 884 , 457 P. 2d 130 , and cases cited therein.) The only issue in the Singleton case concerning the instruction was whether it should have been given under the facts of the case — there was no question concerning the substance of the instruction.

1974(See State v. Brown, 203 Kan. 884 , 457 P. 2d 130 , and cases cited therein.) The only issue in the Singleton case concerning the instruction was whether it should have been given under the facts of the case — there was no question concerning the substance of the instruction.

1970(See State v. Gates, 196 Kan. 216 , 410 P. 2d 264 .) The defendant neither requested additional instructions on this subject nor objected to those prepared and given by the court and he is now in no position to complain of failure to give a more limiting instruction in regard to what was to be considered as evidence.

1970(See State v. Gates, 196 Kan. 216 , 410 P. 2d 264 .) The defendant neither requested additional instructions on this subject nor objected to those prepared and given by the court and he is now in no position to complain of failure to give a more limiting instruction in regard to what was to be considered as evidence.

1969Our court has tacitly recognized the substance of the rule in the recent case of Powell v. City of Haysville, 203 Kan. 543 , 455 P. 2d 528 , where plaintiff, who worked at the city purification plant, came in contact with such chemicals as lime, alum and chlorine.

1969Our court has tacitly recognized the substance of the rule in the recent case of Powell v. City of Haysville, 203 Kan. 543 , 455 P. 2d 528 , where plaintiff, who worked at the city purification plant, came in contact with such chemicals as lime, alum and chlorine.

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

1967In State v. Mader, 196 Kan. 469 , 412 P.2d 1001 , it was said: "Under these circumstances it has been held where an appellant relies upon an alleged error of the court in refusing to give a particular instruction, and only the one instruction is presented to this court for consideration, error will not be predicated upon the refusal to give such instruction, especially where it is claimed by the appellee that the substance of the instruction was in fact given in other instructions. ( State v. Murphy, 145 Kan. 242 , 65 P.2d 342 ; and State v Reilly, 85 Kan. 175 , 116 Pac. 481 .)" (l.c. 476.) Fo

1922The law recognizes no form of insanity, although the mental faculties may be disordered or deranged, which will furnish one immunity from punishment for an act declared by law to be criminal, so long as the person committing the act had the capacity to know what she was doing and had the power to know that this act was wrong.” The substance of this instruction is approved in The State v. Arnold, 79 Kan. 533 , 100 Pac. 64 ; The State v. Johnson, 92 Kan. 441 , 140 Pac. 839 .

1922The law recognizes no form of insanity, although the mental faculties may be disordered or deranged, which will furnish one immunity from punishment for an act declared by law to be criminal, so long as the person committing the act had the capacity to know what she was doing and had the power to know that this act was wrong.” The substance of this instruction is approved in The State v. Arnold, 79 Kan. 533 , 100 Pac. 64 ; The State v. Johnson, 92 Kan. 441 , 140 Pac. 839 .

1922The law recognizes no form of insanity, although the mental faculties may be disordered or deranged, which will furnish one immunity from punishment for an act declared by law to be criminal, so long as the person committing the act had the capacity to know what she was doing and had the power to know that this act was wrong.” The substance of this instruction is approved in The State v. Arnold, 79 Kan. 533 , 100 Pac. 64 ; The State v. Johnson, 92 Kan. 441 , 140 Pac. 839 .

1922The law recognizes no form of insanity, although the mental faculties may be disordered or deranged, which will furnish one immunity from punishment for an act declared by law to be criminal, so long as the person committing the act had the capacity to know what she was doing and had the power to know that this act was wrong.” The substance of this instruction is approved in The State v. Arnold, 79 Kan. 533 , 100 Pac. 64 ; The State v. Johnson, 92 Kan. 441 , 140 Pac. 839 .