endorsement requirement in Kansas

15 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2016 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Staffordgreen kan · 1973 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1980–1993 2 sentences 1993State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. at 164. 1988State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. at 164.	3	3
State v. Harrisgreen kan · 1996 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant	1	1
State v. Royalgreen kan · 1983 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986See also State v. Royal, 234 Kan. 218 , 670 P.2d 1337 (1983). 1986See also State v. Royal, 234 Kan. 218 , 670 P.2d 1337 (1983).	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 (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Bryant green kan · 1980 2 sentences 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant	4	1980–2016
State v. Green green kan · 1993 2 sentences 2015Thus, “[t]he trial court commits reversible error by allowing a late endorsement when such endorsement results in surprise or material prejudice to defendant, preventing ‘a fair preparation of his [or her] defense.’ ” State v. Green, 252 Kan. 548, 553-54 , 847 P.2d 1208 (1993). 1994“The purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant and to give the defendant an opportunity to interview and examine the witnesses for the prosecution in advance of trial.” Green, 252 Kan. at 553 .	4	1994–2015
State v. Shelby neutral kan · 2004 2 sentences 2015“The purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant and to give the defendant an opportunity to interview and examine the witnesses for the prosecution in advance of trial.” State v. Shelby, 277 Kan. 668, 674 , 89 P.3d 558 (2004). 2015“The purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant and to give the defendant an opportunity to interview and examine the witnesses for the prosecution in advance of trial.” State v. Shelby, 277 Kan. 668, 674 , 89 P.3d 558 (2004).	2	2014–2015
State v. Walker green kan · 1992 2 sentences 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant 2016See, e.g., State v. Harris, 259 Kan. 689, 709 , 915 P.2d 758 (1996) (purpose of statute requiring State to provide notice of intent to seek hard-40 sentence is to make defendant aware of hard-40 prospect so as to be in a position to devise his or her strategy); State v. Walker, 252 Kan. 117, 134 , 843 P.2d 203 (1992) (notice required by rape shield statute not only serves to protect rape victim but also provides protection against surprise to the prosecution); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980) (purpose of the endorsement requirement is to prevent surprise to the defendant	1	2016–2016
State v. Bloom green kan · 2002 1 sentence 2006The purpose of the endorsement rule is to prevent the defendant from being surprised and allow the defendant an opportunity to interview tire witnesses before trial. 273 Kan. at 313 .	1	2006–2006
State v. Wilson & Wentworth green kan · 1977 2 sentences 2004"The trial court commits reversible error by allowing a late endorsement when such endorsement results in surprise or material prejudice to defendant, preventing `a fair preparation of his defense.' State v. Wilson & Wentworth, 221 Kan. 359, 364-65 , 559 P.2d 374 (1977)." State v. Green, 252 Kan. 548, 553-54 , 847 P.2d 1208 (1993). 2004"The trial court commits reversible error by allowing a late endorsement when such endorsement results in surprise or material prejudice to defendant, preventing `a fair preparation of his defense.' State v. Wilson & Wentworth, 221 Kan. 359, 364-65 , 559 P.2d 374 (1977)." State v. Green, 252 Kan. 548, 553-54 , 847 P.2d 1208 (1993).	1	2004–2004
State v. Costa green kan · 1980 2 sentences 1985State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 315 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980). 1985State v. Costa, 228 Kan. 308, 315 , 613 P.2d 1359 (1980); State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 387 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980).	1	1985–1985
State v. Rueckert green kan · 1977 2 sentences 1983State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 730 , 561 P.2d 850 (1977).” The purpose of the endorsement requirement included within K.S.A. 22-3201(6) is to prevent surprise to the defendant, and to give him an opportunity to interview and examine the witnesses for the prosecution in advance of trial, should he desire to do so. 1983State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 730 , 561 P.2d 850 (1977).” The purpose of the endorsement requirement included within K.S.A. 22-3201(6) is to prevent surprise to the defendant, and to give him an opportunity to interview and examine the witnesses for the prosecution in advance of trial, should he desire to do so.	1	1983–1983
State v. Ponds and Garrett green kan · 1975 2 sentences 1977He may endorse thereon the names of other witnesses as may afterward become known to him, at such times as the court may by rule or otherwise prescribe." We have held the late endorsement of witnesses rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Rogers, supra, p. 465 ; State v. Ponds and Garrett, 218 Kan. 416 , 543 P.2d 967 .) An abuse of discretion may occur when the use of such a witness results in surprise or material prejudice to the defendant preventing a fair 365 preparation of his defense. ( 1977He may endorse thereon the names of other witnesses as may afterward become known to him, at such times as the court may by rule or otherwise prescribe." We have held the late endorsement of witnesses rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Rogers, supra, p. 465 ; State v. Ponds and Garrett, 218 Kan. 416 , 543 P.2d 967 .) An abuse of discretion may occur when the use of such a witness results in surprise or material prejudice to the defendant preventing a fair 365 preparation of his defense. (	1	1977–1977
State v. Robertson green kan · 1969 2 sentences 1977He may endorse thereon the names of other witnesses as may afterward become known to him, at such times as the court may by rule or otherwise prescribe." We have held the late endorsement of witnesses rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Rogers, supra, p. 465 ; State v. Ponds and Garrett, 218 Kan. 416 , 543 P.2d 967 .) An abuse of discretion may occur when the use of such a witness results in surprise or material prejudice to the defendant preventing a fair 365 preparation of his defense. ( 1977He may endorse thereon the names of other witnesses as may afterward become known to him, at such times as the court may by rule or otherwise prescribe." We have held the late endorsement of witnesses rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent an abuse of discretion, its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. ( State v. Rogers, supra, p. 465 ; State v. Ponds and Garrett, 218 Kan. 416 , 543 P.2d 967 .) An abuse of discretion may occur when the use of such a witness results in surprise or material prejudice to the defendant preventing a fair 365 preparation of his defense. (	1	1977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3201 (13) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (5) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3301 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3402 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3502 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3701 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 21-4624 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-407 (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 15 (1977–2016) CA 7 (1959–2025) WI 6 (1993–2025) TX 6 (1992–2016) NY 5 (1997–2014) PA 5 (1930–2026) ID 4 (1976–2017) GA 3 (2007–2014) IA 3 (1945–1987) MD 3 (1969–2007) WA 3 (1997–2018) TN 3 (1999–2006) IL 2 (1997–1997) FL 2 (2002–2025) NM 2 (1999–2007) MO 2 (1998–2013) OH 2 (2013–2026) UT 2 (2015–2015) ND 2 (1976–1989)

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