felony error in Kansas

1980The rule regarding instructions of lesser degrees of murder was taken from State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 731 , 561 P.2d 850 (1977), as follows: “Normally, a trial court is required to give a full range of lesser included offense instructions; however, when a murder is committed during the commission of a felony the rule requiring instructions on lesser included offenses does not apply. [Citations omitted.] If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for f

1980The rule regarding instructions of lesser degrees of murder was taken from State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 731 , 561 P.2d 850 (1977), as follows: “Normally, a trial court is required to give a full range of lesser included offense instructions; however, when a murder is committed during the commission of a felony the rule requiring instructions on lesser included offenses does not apply. [Citations omitted.] If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for f

1981In State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 731 561 P.2d 850 (1977), this court stated: “Normally, atrial court is required to give a full range of lesser included offense instructions; however, when a murder is committed during the commission of a felony the rule requiring instructions on lesser included offenses does not apply.

1981In State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 731 561 P.2d 850 (1977), this court stated: “Normally, atrial court is required to give a full range of lesser included offense instructions; however, when a murder is committed during the commission of a felony the rule requiring instructions on lesser included offenses does not apply.

2015State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782, 789 , 127 P.3d 307 (2006).

2015State v. Vann, 280 Kan. 782, 789 , 127 P.3d 307 (2006).

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1977(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P. 2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U. S. 951 , 36 L.

2021The court ruled that the district court has a duty to look further into this type of issue: "To protect a defendant's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a district court must inquire into potential conflicts between a defendant charged with a felony and defense counsel if (a) the court is aware of the conflict or (b) it is brought to the court's attention. [Citation omitted.]" 303 Kan. at 447 .

1997The issues are whether the district court erred in: (1) admitting Slaughters statements to police, thus violating his Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) allowing the State to present evidence that Straughter initially invoked his right to remain silent when the police questioned him about an unrelated incident. *482 Slaughter’s additional claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment or withdrawal from the underlying felony as a defense to felony murder is resolved by our recent holding in State v. Kaiser, 260 Kan. 235, 249 , 918 P.2d 629 (1996) (The Kansas L

1997The issues are whether the district court erred in: (1) admitting Slaughters statements to police, thus violating his Fifth Amendment rights; and (2) allowing the State to present evidence that Straughter initially invoked his right to remain silent when the police questioned him about an unrelated incident. *482 Slaughter’s additional claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on abandonment or withdrawal from the underlying felony as a defense to felony murder is resolved by our recent holding in State v. Kaiser, 260 Kan. 235, 249 , 918 P.2d 629 (1996) (The Kansas L

1994K.S.A. 22-2401a (a) and (b). ~-V The majority’s conclusion that K.S.A. 22-2401a(2)(a) and (b) sets the limitations on a city officer when arresting for a felony violation or executing a search warrant is based on State v. Hennessee, 232 Kan. 807 , 658 P.2d 1034 (1983).

1994K.S.A. 22-2401a (a) and (b). ~-V The majority’s conclusion that K.S.A. 22-2401a(2)(a) and (b) sets the limitations on a city officer when arresting for a felony violation or executing a search warrant is based on State v. Hennessee, 232 Kan. 807 , 658 P.2d 1034 (1983).

1993We conclude that the district court correctly held that in a prosecution under K.S.A. 65-4141 charging a defendant with having used a communication facility to facilitate a felony violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a and 65-4127b, the State is required to prove the commission of the underlying felony violation. *936 Dismissal of the information, accordingly, was not erroneous.” 252 Kan. at 645 .

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1981(State v. Reed, 214 Kan. 562 , 520 P.2d 1314 ; State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. denied, 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 ; State v. Germany, 173 Kan. 214 , 245 P.2d 981 .) If a murder is committed during the perpetration of a felony, the felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first degree murder.

1978(State v. Rueckert, supra.) In State v. Bradford, 219 Kan. 336 , 548 P.2d 812 (1976), this court states: “We find the following cogent comment in 41 C.J.S.

1978(State v. Rueckert, supra.) In State v. Bradford, 219 Kan. 336 , 548 P.2d 812 (1976), this court states: “We find the following cogent comment in 41 C.J.S.

1978The felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first-degree murder. ( State v. Rueckert, supra at 731 .) An exception to this rule exists when the evidence of the underlying felony is weak and inconclusive. ( State v. Sullivan & Sullivan, 224 Kan. 110 , 578 P.2d 1108 [1978] and cases cited *568 therein.) Here the evidence of the underlying felony (aggravated burglary) was inconclusive.

1978The felonious conduct is held tantamount to the elements of deliberation and premeditation which are otherwise required for first-degree murder. ( State v. Rueckert, supra at 731 .) An exception to this rule exists when the evidence of the underlying felony is weak and inconclusive. ( State v. Sullivan & Sullivan, 224 Kan. 110 , 578 P.2d 1108 [1978] and cases cited *568 therein.) Here the evidence of the underlying felony (aggravated burglary) was inconclusive.

1960In State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746 , 168 Pac. 1112 , we held that in a prosecution for a felony it is not error to overrule a motion for a continuance based upon the absence of defendant’s chief counsel, when the trial court is satisfied that the junior counsel hurriedly called into the case are experienced lawyers and thoroughly competent to conduct the defense and to protect the rights of the accused.

1960In State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746 , 168 Pac. 1112 , we held that in a prosecution for a felony it is not error to overrule a motion for a continuance based upon the absence of defendant's chief counsel, when the trial court is satisfied that the junior counsel hurriedly called into the case are experienced lawyers and thoroughly competent to conduct the defense and to protect the rights of the accused.

1960In State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746 , 168 Pac. 1112 , we held that in a prosecution for a felony it is not error to overrule a motion for a continuance based upon the absence of defendant’s chief counsel, when the trial court is satisfied that the junior counsel hurriedly called into the case are experienced lawyers and thoroughly competent to conduct the defense and to protect the rights of the accused.

1960In State v. Sweet, 101 Kan. 746 , 168 Pac. 1112 , we held that in a prosecution for a felony it is not error to overrule a motion for a continuance based upon the absence of defendant's chief counsel, when the trial court is satisfied that the junior counsel hurriedly called into the case are experienced lawyers and thoroughly competent to conduct the defense and to protect the rights of the accused.

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1960See also State v. Carter, 122 Kan. 524 , 253 Pac. 551 ; State v. Miller, 131 Kan. 36 , 289 Pac. 483 ; White v. Southern Kansas Stage Lines Co., 136 Kan. 51 , 12 P.2d 713 ; Konitz v. Board of County Commissioners, 180 Kan. 230, 234 , 303 P.2d 180 ; Desch v. Carnutt, 186 Kan. 238, 241, 242 , 349 P.2d 941 ; Annotation, 112 A.L.R. 593 -618, and Knickerbocker Printing Corp. v. United States, 348 U.S. 875 , 75 S.Ct. 112 , 99 L.Ed. 689 , Id., 75 S.Ct. 212 , 99 L.Ed. 1292 .

1949The first three questions raised by petitioner have been answered adversely to his contention in the recent case of Bailey v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 600 , 191 P. 2d 894 , in which it was held that prosecution by information in a Kansas court of competent jurisdiction for a felony is not in violation of any constitutional provision.

1949The first three questions raised by petitioner have been answered adversely to his contention in the recent case of Bailey v. Hudspeth, 164 Kan. 600 , 191 P. 2d 894 , in which it was held that prosecution by information in a Kansas court of competent jurisdiction for a felony is not in violation of any constitutional provision.

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).

1948Moreover, it is settled law in this jurisdiction that the discharge on a preliminary hearing of a person charged with a felony is no bar to a subsequent preliminary hearing on another complaint charging the same offense (State v. Townsend, 150 Kan. 496 , 95 P. 2d 328 ; State v. Badders, 141 Kan. 683, 685 , 42 P. 2d 943 ; State v. Curtis, 108 Kan. 537 , 196 Pac. 445 ; State v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608 ).