102 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 10 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. Herbelgreen2 sentences2016We upheld the “any/any” reasonable doubt instruction in State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction used in Herbels trial was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). 2016We upheld the “any/any” reasonable doubt instruction in State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction used in Herbels trial was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Huddlestongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). 2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Jamisongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). 2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Pabstgreen2 sentences2004We again pointed out that the juiy had received the proper PIK instruction on premeditation, the jury had been told that arguments of counsel were not evidence, and there was evidence of premeditation. 273 Kan. at 663 . 2004We again pointed out that the juiy had received the proper PIK instruction on premeditation, the jury had been told that arguments of counsel were not evidence, and there was evidence of premeditation. 273 Kan. at 663 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Smysergreen2 sentences2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. 2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Waggonergreen2 sentences2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. 2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Beckwith v. Communications Workers of Americagreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. 2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. | 2 | 2 |
Watson v. Luckettgreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. 2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Varnergreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. 2008See, e.g., State v. Pabst, 273 Kan. 658, 661 , 44 P.3d 1230 , cert. denied 537 U.S. 959 , 123 S.Ct. 384 , 154 L.Ed.2d 311 (2002) (No error for prosecutor to say premeditation "means to have thought the matter over beforehand. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hebertgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). 2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (noting jury had been given proper PIK instruction and was presumed to have followed it over prosecutor’s statements); State v. Jamison, 269 Kan. 564, 572-73 , 7 P.3d 1204 (2000) (prosecutor’s misstatement on the law on premeditation was not reversible error when the jury was properly instructed on the law). | 1 | 7 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. 2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Statengreen2 sentences2024The court explained: "In light of the generally correct nature of the instructions as a whole as well as the nature of the evidence supporting Staten's claim of self-defense, we find no basis in the instructions to reverse Staten's conviction." 304 Kan. at 967 . 2020The Staten court ultimately held that the failure to give the affirmative defense PIK instruction amounted to error, but that it was not clear error based on "the instructions as a whole as well as the nature of the evidence supporting Staten's claim of self-defense." Staten, 304 Kan. at 967 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2016After comparing the statements in Gunby to the facts in two other cases in which we had affirmed jury findings of premeditation in strangulation cases, the court held that it regarded “the prosecutors statements in this case as barely outside the broad latitude permitted him in discussing the evidence in this case” and said that “whatever error they may have injected into the trial was harmless.” 282 Kan. at 65 ; see also State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 108 , 21 P.3d 516 (2001) (continued application of pressure over a period of time sufficient for a jury to find victim’s death premeditated); St 2016After comparing the statements in Gunby to the facts in two other cases in which we had affirmed jury findings of premeditation in strangulation cases, the court held that it regarded “the prosecutors statements in this case as barely outside the broad latitude permitted him in discussing the evidence in this case” and said that “whatever error they may have injected into the trial was harmless.” 282 Kan. at 65 ; see also State v. Scott, 271 Kan. 103, 108 , 21 P.3d 516 (2001) (continued application of pressure over a period of time sufficient for a jury to find victim’s death premeditated); St | 1 | 2 |
State v. Saltsgreen2 sentences2016In State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), the Kansas Supreme Court found that it was erroneous to instruct tire jury after both sides had rested that “ ‘[ajnother trial would be a burden on both sides.’” Although this language was, at-the time, part of the applicable PIK instruction, the court found that the sentence was misleading and inaccurate because a second trial may be burdensome to some but not all parties to a criminal case. 2016In State v. Salts, 288 Kan. 263, 266 , 200 P.3d 464 (2009), the Kansas Supreme Court found that it was erroneous to instruct tire jury after both sides had rested that “ ‘[ajnother trial would be a burden on both sides.’” Although this language was, at-the time, part of the applicable PIK instruction, the court found that the sentence was misleading and inaccurate because a second trial may be burdensome to some but not all parties to a criminal case. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilkersongreen2 sentences2007See State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147, 158 , 91 P.3d 1181 (2004). 2007See State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147, 158 , 91 P.3d 1181 (2004). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Whitakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Staffordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hogegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of Bruntongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Applebygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. WOMELSDORFgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gallegosgreen | 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. Bernhardt
green
2 sentences2017The judge gave the standard PIK instruction that each crime is a separate and distinct offense, that the jury must consider each individually, and that its "agreement on a verdict must be unanimous." See State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 470 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (use of PIK instructions not mandatory; but, unless facts of case require modification, PIK recommendations should be followed). 2017The judge gave the standard PIK instruction that each crime is a separate and distinct offense, that the jury must consider each individually, and that its "agreement on a verdict must be unanimous." See State v. Bernhardt, 304 Kan. 460, 470 , 372 P.3d 1161 (2016) (use of PIK instructions not mandatory; but, unless facts of case require modification, PIK recommendations should be followed). | 4 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2008Holt acknowledges that per the official Comment to PIK Crim 3d 54.05, the trial court may properly refuse to add the “mere presence or association” language because the pattern instruction “clearly informs the jury that intentional acts by a defendant are necessary to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting.” State v. Pink, 270 Kan. at 738-39 ; State v. Jackson, 270 Kan. 755, 760-61 , 19 P.3d 121 (2001); State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 46 , 936 P.2d 1364 (1997); State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350, 361 , 827 P.2d 733 (1992); State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 639 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987). 2008Holt acknowledges that per the official Comment to PIK Crim 3d 54.05, the trial court may properly refuse to add the “mere presence or association” language because the pattern instruction “clearly informs the jury that intentional acts by a defendant are necessary to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting.” State v. Pink, 270 Kan. at 738-39 ; State v. Jackson, 270 Kan. 755, 760-61 , 19 P.3d 121 (2001); State v. Ninci, 262 Kan. 21, 46 , 936 P.2d 1364 (1997); State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350, 361 , 827 P.2d 733 (1992); State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 639 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987). | 4 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. 2014See PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp); see also State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While tire older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”); State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 475 , 931 P.2d 664 (1997) (“[W]e hold that the provisions of PIK Crim. | 3 | 2005–2014 |
State v. Doyle
green
2 sentences2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (prosecutor’s improper comment regarding premeditation was not reversible error when there was no evidence that prosecutor deliberately misstated the law, jury was given proper PIK instruction on premeditation, and jury was told that arguments of counsel were not evidence); State v. Doyle, 272 Kan. 1157, 1165-66 , 2014See State v. Huddleston, 298 Kan. 941, 956 , 318 P.3d 140 (2014) (“Although these instructions do not give the prosecutor a free pass on misconduct, they are appropriate considerations when evaluating whether a jury was misled.”); State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 85 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (prosecutor’s improper comment regarding premeditation was not reversible error when there was no evidence that prosecutor deliberately misstated the law, jury was given proper PIK instruction on premeditation, and jury was told that arguments of counsel were not evidence); State v. Doyle, 272 Kan. 1157, 1165-66 , | 3 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Wilson
red
2 sentences2002This court stated that “[t]he instruction as given thus lacked the clarity of the original PIK instruction and did not warn the jury that when this defense is raised, the State’s burden of proof does not shift to the defendant.” 240 Kan. at 609 . 2002This court stated that “[t]he instruction as given thus lacked the clarity of the original PIK instruction and did not warn the jury that when this defense is raised, the State’s burden of proof does not shift to the defendant.” 240 Kan. at 609 . | 3 | 1988–2002 |
State v. Stanley
green
2 sentences2025When the parties and court discussed instructions, the district court noted that the State was requesting the added language from State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 561-63, 478 P.3d 324 (2020), and Bernhardt, 304 Kan. at 464-65 . 2025When the parties and court discussed instructions, the district court noted that the State was requesting the added language from State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 561-63, 478 P.3d 324 (2020), and Bernhardt, 304 Kan. at 464-65 . | 2 | 2022–2025 |
Sola-Morales v. State
green
2 sentences2024And notably, the Shawn Collins court relied on the rule from Sola-Morales to find any error in instructing on a lesser offense, when a defendant is convicted of a higher offense, "is likely to be harmless." 2018 WL 5305661 , at *10; Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 885-86 . 2024And notably, the Shawn Collins court relied on the rule from Sola-Morales to find any error in instructing on a lesser offense, when a defendant is convicted of a higher offense, "is likely to be harmless." 2018 WL 5305661 , at *10; Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 885-86 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Sperry
green
2 sentences2016Then, in State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), this court was again confronted with a self-defense instruction given without the clarifying 52.08 PIK instruction. 2016Then, in State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287 , 978 P.2d 933 (1999), this court was again confronted with a self-defense instruction given without the clarifying 52.08 PIK instruction. | 2 | 2016–2020 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2000However, absent such need, PIK *356 instructions and recommendations should be followed.’ ” (Quoting State v. Dunn, 249 Kan. 488, 492-93 , 820 P.2d 412 [1991].) Mitchell argues that because the PIK instruction was amended following State v. Pennington, 254 Kan. 757 , 869 P.2d 624 (1994), to read “must not” instead of “should not,” the use of the instruction “violated what is now a well-established principle of the jury instruction.” Failure to use the exact language found in the PIK instruction is not fatal and does not automatically require reversal. 2000However, absent such need, PIK *356 instructions and recommendations should be followed.’ ” (Quoting State v. Dunn, 249 Kan. 488, 492-93 , 820 P.2d 412 [1991].) Mitchell argues that because the PIK instruction was amended following State v. Pennington, 254 Kan. 757 , 869 P.2d 624 (1994), to read “must not” instead of “should not,” the use of the instruction “violated what is now a well-established principle of the jury instruction.” Failure to use the exact language found in the PIK instruction is not fatal and does not automatically require reversal. | 2 | 2000–2020 |
State v. Hilt
green
2 sentences2017But inclusion of the additional language is the better practice; and, in future cases, when the additional language is requested, the judge should modify the PIK instruction." 299 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 1. 2017But inclusion of the additional language is the better practice; and, in future cases, when the additional language is requested, the judge should modify the PIK instruction." 299 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 1. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Gleason
green
2 sentences2017Gleason, 299 Kan. at 1191-94 . 2016Gleason, 299 Kan. at 1191-94 . | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Gunby
green
2 sentences2016We noted that “these remarks defined premeditation somewhere between the level of forethought outlined in the PIK instruction we have endorsed... and the ‘instantaneous’ timing we have disapproved.” 282 Kan. at 64 . 2016We noted that “these remarks defined premeditation somewhere between the level of forethought outlined in the PIK instruction we have endorsed... and the ‘instantaneous’ timing we have disapproved.” 282 Kan. at 64 . | 2 | 2008–2016 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2001Use of the PIK instruction language helps to protect the rights of criminal defendants in our courts and significantly reduces the number of criminal appeals and issues raised in appeals of criminal cases.” 269 Kan. at 357 . 2001Use of the PIK instruction language helps to protect the rights of criminal defendants in our courts and significantly reduces the number of criminal appeals and issues raised in appeals of criminal cases.” 269 Kan. at 357 . | 2 | 2001–2016 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2014Supplementation of the Aiding and Abetting Instruction Williams was prosecuted as an aider and abettor, and the jury received the following aiding and abetting instruction, which conforms with PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 (responsibility for crimes of another): “A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant’s participation, if any, in the actual commission of die crime.” Williams requested that the instruction 2014Supplementation of the Aiding and Abetting Instruction Williams was prosecuted as an aider and abettor, and the jury received the following aiding and abetting instruction, which conforms with PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 (responsibility for crimes of another): “A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant’s participation, if any, in the actual commission of die crime.” Williams requested that the instruction | 2 | 2001–2014 |
| State v. Pioletti green | 2 | 1996–1997 |
State v. Whitaker
green
2 sentences1997State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118, 124 , 872 P.2d 278 (1994); State v. Pioletti, 246 Kan. 49, 58-59 , 785 P.2d 963 (1990). 1997State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118, 124 , 872 P.2d 278 (1994); State v. Pioletti, 246 Kan. 49, 58-59 , 785 P.2d 963 (1990). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
| State v. Chastain green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Wimbley green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Murrin green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Ward green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Llamas green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| City of Wichita v. Sealpak Co. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Dubish green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Brice green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Wesson red | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Holt green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Hundley green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. McCormick green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cooper green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Crabtree green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Osbey green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cooperwood green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Remmers green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Livingston green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Howell v. Calvert green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.