14 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallred2 sentences2019Under this post-Hall standard, also called the "common-sense rule," appellate courts examined the information as a whole and interpreted the charging document to include facts necessarily implied. 246 Kan. at 764-65 . 2012The Shirley court explained that this new standard—referred to as the post-Hall standard or test—requires the defendant to show that the claimed defect either “(1) prejudiced the defendant’s preparation of a defense, (2) impaired the defendant’s ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution, or (3) limited die defendant’s substantial rights to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. [Hall,] 246 Kan. at 765 .” Shirley, 277 Kan. at 662 . | 4 | 10 |
Ferguson v. Stategreen2 sentences2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl 2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl | 4 | 5 |
Kansas v. McElroygreen2 sentences2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl 2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Portillo
green
2 sentences2016Rather, he quoted language from our decision in State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012). 2016Rather, he quoted language from our decision in State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242 , 274 P.3d 640 (2012). | 3 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Shirley
green
2 sentences2012The Shirley court explained that this new standard—referred to as the post-Hall standard or test—requires the defendant to show that the claimed defect either “(1) prejudiced the defendant’s preparation of a defense, (2) impaired the defendant’s ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution, or (3) limited die defendant’s substantial rights to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. [Hall,] 246 Kan. at 765 .” Shirley, 277 Kan. at 662 . 2011When the charging document is challenged for the first time on appeal, “the defendant must show that the alleged defect either: (1) prejudiced the defendant’s preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant’s ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant’s substantial rights to a fair trial.” Gracey, 288 Kan. at 254 ; see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 761 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McElroy, 281 Kan. 256, 261 , 130 P.3d 100 (2006) *662 (applying | 3 | 2009–2012 |
State v. Gracey
green
2 sentences2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl 2011A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the charging document for the first time on appeal must show the alleged defect either "(1) prejudiced the defendant's preparation of a defense; (2) impaired the defendant's ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution; or (3) limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Gracey, 288 Kan. 252, 254 , 200 P.3d 1275 (2009); see State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 765 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003); see also State v. McEl | 3 | 2009–2011 |
State v. Overman
green
2 sentences2019And based on that, the panel held that even though the Van Cleave court used the post-Hall test, it reached the correct result and affirmed. 2016 WL 7325012 , at *18 (citing State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704, 712 , 348 P.3d 516 [2015] [affirming district court as right for wrong reasons]). 2019And based on that, the panel held that even though the Van Cleave court used the post-Hall test, it reached the correct result and affirmed. 2016 WL 7325012 , at *18 (citing State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704, 712 , 348 P.3d 516 [2015] [affirming district court as right for wrong reasons]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Martis
green
2 sentences2006As this issue is being raised for the first time on appeal, the post-State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 764-65 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003), standard of review applies: “The post-Hall standard applies a common-sense interpretation of complaints and informations and requires this court to look at whether the claimed defect in the information has prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of his or her defense, impaired the defendant’s ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution, or limited the defen 2006As this issue is being raised for the first time on appeal, the post-State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 764-65 , 793 P.2d 737 (1990), overruled in part on other grounds by Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 , 78 P.3d 40 (2003), standard of review applies: “The post-Hall standard applies a common-sense interpretation of complaints and informations and requires this court to look at whether the claimed defect in the information has prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of his or her defense, impaired the defendant’s ability to plead the conviction in any subsequent prosecution, or limited the defen | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Waterberry
green
1 sentence2000The post- Hall rule applies to cases pending as of or after May 31, 1990. 248 Kan. at 172 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.