17 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 5 | 2013–2016 |
State v. Ellmaker
green
2 sentences2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 4 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Holt
green
2 sentences2024State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 1007 , 336 P.3d 312 (2014). 2024State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985, 1007 , 336 P.3d 312 (2014). | 3 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2026"The test for cumulative error is whether the errors substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial given the totality of the circumstances." State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 (2020). 2024"The test for cumulative error is whether the errors substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial given the totality of the circumstances." Couch, 317 Kan. at 597 (quoting State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 914, 468 P.3d 323 [2020]). | 2 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2024So after Williams, when it came time to do a cumulative error analysis in later cases, the court recited its typical boilerplate language describing cumulative error and just scooped up "all identified errors." See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 314 Kan. 166 , Syl. ¶ 1, 496 P.3d 526 (2021): "The test for cumulative error considers whether all the identified errors substantially prejudiced the defendant to the extent they affected the trial's outcome given the totality of the circumstances. 2024So after Williams, when it came time to do a cumulative error analysis in later cases, the court recited its typical boilerplate language describing cumulative error and just scooped up "all identified errors." See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 314 Kan. 166 , Syl. ¶ 1, 496 P.3d 526 (2021): "The test for cumulative error considers whether all the identified errors substantially prejudiced the defendant to the extent they affected the trial's outcome given the totality of the circumstances. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2021No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant."'" State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 457-58 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016). 2021No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant."'" State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 457-58 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
State v. Cruz
green
2 sentences2016No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.'"'" Williams, 299 Kan. at 1050 (quoting State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 [2013]). 2016No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.'"'" Williams, 299 Kan. at 1050 (quoting State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 [2013]). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2016No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.'"'" Williams, 299 Kan. at 1050 (quoting State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 [2013]). 2016No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.'"'" Williams, 299 Kan. at 1050 (quoting State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 [2013]). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Waldschmidt
green
1 sentence2024As we explained in State v. Waldschmidt, 318 Kan. 633 , Syl. ¶ 9, 546 P.3d 716 (2024), unpreserved instructional issues that are not clearly erroneous cannot be considered as a component of cumulative error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 2016No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Williams, 303 Kan. 585, 604 , 363 P.3d 1101 (2015). *746 When applying this test, if any of the errors being cumulated are constitutional in nature, their cumulative effect must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Foster
green
2 sentences2013No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant/ [Citation omitted.]” See State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010); State v. Foster, 290 Kan. 696, 726 , 233 P.3d 265 (2010). 2013No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant/ [Citation omitted.]” See State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010); State v. Foster, 290 Kan. 696, 726 , 233 P.3d 265 (2010). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Taylor v. State
green
2 sentences1999Taylor v. State, 251 Kan. 272 , Syl. ¶ 6, 834 P.2d 1325 (1992). 1999Taylor v. State, 251 Kan. 272 , Syl. ¶ 6, 834 P.2d 1325 (1992). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.