burden of establishing error in Kansas

1995In State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 292, 296 , 532 P.2d 1077 (1975), the Kansas Supreme Court held that 22-3716 “meets all constitutional requirements in such proceedings.” K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-3716(b) provides in relevant part: “The hearing shall be in open court and the state shall have the burden of establishing the violation.

1995In State v. Rasler, 216 Kan. 292, 296 , 532 P.2d 1077 (1975), the Kansas Supreme Court held that 22-3716 “meets all constitutional requirements in such proceedings.” K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-3716(b) provides in relevant part: “The hearing shall be in open court and the state shall have the burden of establishing the violation.

1900In the case of Town Company v. Swigart, 43 Kan. 292 , 23 Pac. 569 , our supreme court held: “ Where the president and secretary of a corporation execute a contract in behalf of the company, which is regular on its face and not shown to be outside of the regular business of the corporation, it is prima facie evidence that it was executed with authority, and those who deny the authority take upon themselves the burden of establishing their claim.” Under the authority of this case, we hold that the burden of proving want of authority on the part of Bedell and Breidenthal to execute the contract r

1898In the case of Town Co. v. Swigart ( 43 Kan. 292 , 23 Pac. 569 ), the supreme court said: “Where the president and secretary of a corporation execute a contract in behalf of the company, which is regular on its face and not shown to be outside of the regular business of the corporation, it is prima facie evidence that it was executed with authority, and those who deny the authority take upon themselves the burden of establishing their claim. ‘ ‘ Where the president and secretary of a corporation act openly and publicly as its agents in making contracts and generally in managing its business, w

2026The Nunez court cited to earlier cases where the court had said "errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"'" 319 Kan. at 356 (quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 [2010])." The State bears the burden of establishing the error is harmless.

2026The Nunez court cited to earlier cases where the court had said "errors are harmless if the record contains no evidence which '"could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the element that the defendant was over the age of 18 at the time of the crime"'" 319 Kan. at 356 (quoting State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 682 , 234 P.3d 761 [2010])." The State bears the burden of establishing the error is harmless.

2025Quesenbury, 229 Kan. at 504 .

2017Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010).

2017Soto v. City of Bonner Springs, 291 Kan. 73, 78 , 238 P.3d 278 (2010).

2014Longstaff, 296 Kan. at 895 ; Ward, 292 Kan. at 568-69 .

2014Longstaff, 296 Kan. at 895 ; Ward, 292 Kan. at 568-69 .

2009K.S.A. 8-1020(p), (q); Martin, 285 Kan. at 631 .

2005Macomber, 244 Kan. at 407 .

1977If the violation is established, the court may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, and may require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, . . .” (K.S.A. 22-3716[2].) We have held the procedure provided in this statute meets the constitutional requirements imposed upon proceedings for revocation as judicially declared in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 33 L.Ed.2d *135 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593 .

1977If the violation is established, the court may continue or revoke the probation or suspension of sentence, and may require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed, or any lesser sentence, . . .” (K.S.A. 22-3716[2].) We have held the procedure provided in this statute meets the constitutional requirements imposed upon proceedings for revocation as judicially declared in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 , 33 L.Ed.2d *135 484, 92 S.Ct. 2593 .

1920(Mitchell v. Mitchell, 18 Weekly Notes of Cases [Pa.], 439; Shrader v. U. S. Glass Co., 179 Pa. St. 623; Terryberry v. Woods, 69 Vt. 94 .) The mistake in the giving of a receipt is not to be treated as matter of avoidance which changes the burden of proof.