Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r 2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r | 3 | 6 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2021State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). "'Whereas the burden to show harmlessness generally shifts to the party who benefitted by the error, the burden to show clear error . . . remains on the defendant." State v. King, 299 Kan. 372, 379 , 323 P.3d 1277 (2014). 2021State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). "'Whereas the burden to show harmlessness generally shifts to the party who benefitted by the error, the burden to show clear error . . . remains on the defendant." State v. King, 299 Kan. 372, 379 , 323 P.3d 1277 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Castleberrygreen2 sentences2021State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). "'Whereas the burden to show harmlessness generally shifts to the party who benefitted by the error, the burden to show clear error . . . remains on the defendant." State v. King, 299 Kan. 372, 379 , 323 P.3d 1277 (2014). 2021State v. Castleberry, 301 Kan. 170, 185-86 , 339 P.3d 795 (2014). "'Whereas the burden to show harmlessness generally shifts to the party who benefitted by the error, the burden to show clear error . . . remains on the defendant." State v. King, 299 Kan. 372, 379 , 323 P.3d 1277 (2014). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r 2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Crosby
green
2 sentences2025See K.S.A. 22-3414(3); State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630 , 639, 479 P.3d 167 (2021). 2025State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630 , 639, 479 P.3d 167 (2021); see K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 22-3414(3). | 4 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Trujillo
green
2 sentences2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r 2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r | 2 | 2015–2017 |
State v. Berkstresser
green
1 sentence2025In this case, Wabaunsee has the burden to show clear error; in other words, Wabaunsee must convince us that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the error had not occurred. 317 Kan. at 242; State v. Berkstresser, 316 Kan. 597 , 605, 520 P.3d 718 (2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences2017State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 433 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014). 2017State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 433 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Haberlein
green
2 sentences2015The Haberlein court first found the instruction was legally appropriate because intentional second-degree murder is a lesser included offense of premeditated first-degree murder. 296 Kan. at 204 ; see K.S.A. 21-3401(a) (defining first-degree premeditated murder as the killing of a human being committed intentionally and with premeditation); K.S.A. 21-3402(a) (second-degree intentional murder is the tolling of a human being committed intentionally; no premeditation is required). 2015The burden to show clear error under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3414(3) remains on the defendant. 296 Kan. at 203-04 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Plummer
green
1 sentence2015Williams, 295 Kan. at 515 ; Plummer, 295 Kan. at 163 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hawkinson v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2015If, on the other hand, a party fails to preserve an objection to the jury instructions by not raising the argument before the district court, we will still review whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate but will reverse only for “clear error.” Williams, 295 Kan. at 510, 516 . “ ‘An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility that the juiy would have returned a different verdict.’ ” Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 581 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998); see Williams, 295 Ka 2015If, on the other hand, a party fails to preserve an objection to the jury instructions by not raising the argument before the district court, we will still review whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate but will reverse only for “clear error.” Williams, 295 Kan. at 510, 516 . “ ‘An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility that the juiy would have returned a different verdict.’ ” Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 581 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998); see Williams, 295 Ka | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Vonn
green
2 sentences2012Cf. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 , 122 S. Ct. 1043 , 152 L. 2012Cf. United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 58-59 , 122 S. Ct. 1043 , 152 L. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.