Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2011 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robert Douglas Treadwaygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Flournoy, 272 Kan. 784, 795 , 36 P.3d 273 (2001) (“ ‘The Kansas harmless error statute encompasses the federal harmless error and plain error rules.’ ” [Citations omitted.]) The court considered it important that Treadway had never objected to the removal of Agee or to the substitution of his replacement attorney and he had not indicated the replacement attorney provided unsatisfactory representation. 328 F.3d at 889 . 2004Thus, the court concluded that Treadway had failed to show how the removal of Agee had “affected his substantial rights or the ‘fundamental fairness, honesty, or public reputation’ of his judicial proceeding.” 328 F.3d at 889 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flournoygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Flournoy, 272 Kan. 784, 795 , 36 P.3d 273 (2001) (“ ‘The Kansas harmless error statute encompasses the federal harmless error and plain error rules.’ ” [Citations omitted.]) The court considered it important that Treadway had never objected to the removal of Agee or to the substitution of his replacement attorney and he had not indicated the replacement attorney provided unsatisfactory representation. 328 F.3d at 889 . 2004See State v. Flournoy, 272 Kan. 784, 795 , 36 P.3d 273 (2001) (“ ‘The Kansas harmless error statute encompasses the federal harmless error and plain error rules.’ ” [Citations omitted.]) The court considered it important that Treadway had never objected to the removal of Agee or to the substitution of his replacement attorney and he had not indicated the replacement attorney provided unsatisfactory representation. 328 F.3d at 889 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2001See K.S.A. 60-261 (harmless error); State v. Holmes, 272 Kan. 491, 498 , 33 P.3d 856, 861 (2001) (“The Kansas harmless error statute encompasses the federal harmless error and plain error rules.”) The prosecutor’s remarks here do not rise to the level of violating either Flournoy’s right to a fair.trial or his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. 2001See K.S.A. 60-261 (harmless error); State v. Holmes, 272 Kan. 491, 498 , 33 P.3d 856, 861 (2001) (“The Kansas harmless error statute encompasses the federal harmless error and plain error rules.”) The prosecutor’s remarks here do not rise to the level of violating either Flournoy’s right to a fair.trial or his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. | 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. Thompson
green
2 sentences1978“In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A. 60-2105) to a federal constitutional error a court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.” (State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341 , Syl. 4, 564 P.2d 536 ; State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176 , Syl. 5, 558 P.2d 93 .) Two girls positively identified Hayes, and Holt gave testimony at trial that incriminated Hayes. 1978“In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A. 60-2105) to a federal constitutional error a court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.” (State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341 , Syl. 4, 564 P.2d 536 ; State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176 , Syl. 5, 558 P.2d 93 .) Two girls positively identified Hayes, and Holt gave testimony at trial that incriminated Hayes. | 4 | 1977–1982 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1982In State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341 , Syl. ¶ 4, 564 P.2d 536 (1977), the Supreme Court stated: “In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A. 60-2105) to a federal constitutional error a court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.” The only evidence presented as a result of the court’s erroneous ruling was a statement that over $1,500 was found in the car. 1982In State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341 , Syl. ¶ 4, 564 P.2d 536 (1977), the Supreme Court stated: “In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A. 60-2105) to a federal constitutional error a court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt.” The only evidence presented as a result of the court’s erroneous ruling was a statement that over $1,500 was found in the car. | 4 | 1977–1982 |
State v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2011The court simply stated: "In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A.60-2105), a reviewing court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt." Alexander, 240 Kan. at 276 , 729 P.2d 1126 . 2011The court simply stated: "In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A.60-2105), a reviewing court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt." Alexander, 240 Kan. at 276 , 729 P.2d 1126 . | 2 | 1988–2011 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1982State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 5, 558 P.2d 93 (1976); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967). 1982State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176 , Syl. ¶ 5, 558 P.2d 93 (1976); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967). | 2 | 1969–1982 |
State v. Fleury
green
2 sentences1976In State v. Fleury, 203 Kan. 888 , Syl. ¶ 2, 457 P. 2d 44 , we stated the rule that governs our considerations of federal constitutional error: *653 “In applying the Kansas harmless-error rule (K. 1976In State v. Fleury, 203 Kan. 888 , Syl. ¶ 2, 457 P. 2d 44 , we stated the rule that governs our considerations of federal constitutional error: *653 “In applying the Kansas harmless-error rule (K. | 2 | 1969–1976 |
State v. Mustafa Abdulla Abu-Isba
green
2 sentences1986State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 859 , 685 P.2d 856 (1984); State v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 151, 159 , 643 P.2d 146 (1982). 1986State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 859 , 685 P.2d 856 (1984); State v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 151, 159 , 643 P.2d 146 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1986State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 859 , 685 P.2d 856 (1984); State v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 151, 159 , 643 P.2d 146 (1982). 1986State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 859 , 685 P.2d 856 (1984); State v. Johnson, 231 Kan. 151, 159 , 643 P.2d 146 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Dill
green
2 sentences1982In applying the Kansas harmless error rule (K.S.A. 60-2105) to a federal constitutional error the court must be able to declare the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial and the court must be able to declare such a belief beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Where the evidence of guilt is of such direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said the misconduct of counsel could not have affected the result of the trial, such misconduct is harmless error.” Again, in State v. Dill, 3 Kan. 1982App. 2d 67 , 589 P.2d 634 (1979), this court held that such a comment by a prosecutor is not prejudicial per se, but the reviewing court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Hutchinson
green
1 sentence1977State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176 , 558 P.2d 93 ; State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 365 , 564 P.2d 536 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.