district court committed clear error in Kansas

2024The State contends Collins cannot show the district court committed clear error because "the instructions as a whole . . . informed the jurors that the burden of proof was on the State." When reviewing a claim that a district court has committed an error by failing to issue a jury instruction, we engage in a four-step analysis: "First, the court considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, the court applies an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; 16 then,

2024The State contends Collins cannot show the district court committed clear error because "the instructions as a whole . . . informed the jurors that the burden of proof was on the State." When reviewing a claim that a district court has committed an error by failing to issue a jury instruction, we engage in a four-step analysis: "First, the court considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, the court applies an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; 16 then,

2024A panel of this court later reversed Flynn's rape conviction, finding the district court committed clear error when it failed to instruct the jury on withdrawn consent in accordance with a prior case, State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan 392, 133 P. 3d 14 (2006).

2014There, the panel majority reversed Ira Flynn’s rape conviction and remanded for a new trial after concluding the district court committed clear error in failing to instruct the jury pursuant to State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392 , 133 P.3d 14 (2006).

2024Coleman asserts: (1) The prosecutor who presented the State's initial closing argument and a second prosecutor who presented an argument rebutting Coleman's closing erred by making incorrect statements of law and fact about premeditation. (2) The district court committed clear error by failing to give a modified jury instruction on premeditation approved by this court in State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016), and State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 478 P.3d 324 (2020). (3) The district court erred by failing to remove his trial counsel after a complete breakdown in communication

2024Coleman asserts: (1) The prosecutor who presented the State's initial closing argument and a second prosecutor who presented an argument rebutting Coleman's closing erred by making incorrect statements of law and fact about premeditation. (2) The district court committed clear error by failing to give a modified jury instruction on premeditation approved by this court in State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016), and State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 478 P.3d 324 (2020). (3) The district court erred by failing to remove his trial counsel after a complete breakdown in communication

2024Coleman asserts: (1) The prosecutor who presented the State's initial closing argument and a second prosecutor who presented an argument rebutting Coleman's closing erred by making incorrect statements of law and fact about premeditation. (2) The district court committed clear error by failing to give a modified jury instruction on premeditation approved by this court in State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016), and State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 478 P.3d 324 (2020). (3) The district court erred by failing to remove his trial counsel after a complete breakdown in communication

2024Coleman asserts: (1) The prosecutor who presented the State's initial closing argument and a second prosecutor who presented an argument rebutting Coleman's closing erred by making incorrect statements of law and fact about premeditation. (2) The district court committed clear error by failing to give a modified jury instruction on premeditation approved by this court in State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016), and State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 478 P.3d 324 (2020). (3) The district court erred by failing to remove his trial counsel after a complete breakdown in communication

2021When presented with a claim that a district court has erred in issuing or refusing to issue a jury instruction: "(1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction; and

2021When presented with a claim that a district court has erred in issuing or refusing to issue a jury instruction: "(1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction; and

2020Third, he argues the district court committed clear error in its definitional jury instruction of "dangerous weapon." When analyzing jury instruction issues, we follow a three-step process: "(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of the claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether the error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless." State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286

2020Third, he argues the district court committed clear error in its definitional jury instruction of "dangerous weapon." When analyzing jury instruction issues, we follow a three-step process: "(1) determining whether the appellate court can or should review the issue, i.e., whether there is a lack of appellate jurisdiction or a failure to preserve the issue for appeal; (2) considering the merits of the claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether the error requires reversal, i.e., whether the error can be deemed harmless." State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286

2020The State argues that the Kansas Supreme Court, in State v. Boothby, 310 Kan. 619 , 448 P.3d 416 (2019), addressed the same instructional language now challenged by Albano and determined that it did not interfere with the jury's power to nullify.

2020The State argues that the Kansas Supreme Court, in State v. Boothby, 310 Kan. 619 , 448 P.3d 416 (2019), addressed the same instructional language now challenged by Albano and determined that it did not interfere with the jury's power to nullify.

2015To find clear error, we must be "firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the instruction had been given." State v. Cameron, 300 Kan. 384, 389 , 329 P.3d 1158 , cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 728 (2014). 1.2.

2015To find clear error, we must be "firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the instruction had been given." State v. Cameron, 300 Kan. 384, 389 , 329 P.3d 1158 , cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 728 (2014). 1.2.

2015To find clear error, we must be "firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the instruction had been given." State v. Cameron, 300 Kan. 384, 389 , 329 P.3d 1158 , cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 728 (2014). 1.2.

2015To find clear error, we must be "firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the instruction had been given." State v. Cameron, 300 Kan. 384, 389 , 329 P.3d 1158 , cert. denied 135 S. Ct. 728 (2014). 1.2.

2020The "first and third step are interrelated in that whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue will affect our reversibility inquiry at the third step." Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 209 .

2018Butler , 307 Kan. at 845 .

2014Flynn, 45 Kan.

2002App. 2d 256, 258 , 27 P.3d 919, 922 (2000) (citing Burroughs v. Thomas, 23 Kan.