party benefiting error in Kansas

2016State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1110 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013).” Lewis, 299 Kan. at 848-49 .

2016State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1110 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013).” Lewis, 299 Kan. at 848-49 .

2026A court will declare a constitutional error harmless only when the party benefiting from the error persuades the court "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2026A court will declare a constitutional error harmless only when the party benefiting from the error persuades the court "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2026Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [1967]), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012).

2026Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [1967]).

2024Even an error that infringes on a party's constitutional rights is considered to be harmless if the party benefiting from the error—in this case the State—persuades us "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2021However, in an abundance of caution given the constitutional rights at stake in this appeal, we will apply the rule that a court will declare a constitutional error harmless only where the party benefiting from the error persuades the court "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012) (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 ,

2024State v. Alfaro- Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 , 551-52, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).

2024State v. Alfaro-Valleda, 314 Kan. 526 , 551-52, 502 P.3d 66 (2022).

2025The prosecution, as the party benefiting from the error, bears the burden of showing the error was harmless. 293 Kan. at 524 .

2024The prosecution, as the party benefiting from the error, bears the burden of showing the error was harmless. 293 Kan. at 524 .

2026State v. Lowery, 308 Kan. 1183 , 1235, 427 P.3d 865 (2018).

2026In other words, "the party benefiting from the error must establish that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the jury's verdict." State v. Brown, 59 Kan.

2026App. 2d 418, 447 , 486 P.3d 624 , rev. denied 313 Kan. 1043 (2021).

2025As the party benefiting from the violation of a defendant's constitutional right to due process, the State must prove "'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of . . . did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed' to the sentence." 296 Kan. at 574 .

2022The party benefiting from the error must prove "'there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome in light of the entire record.'" State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 564 , 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (quoting State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 9, 270 P.3d 1142 [2012]).

2022The party benefiting from the error must prove "'there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome in light of the entire record.'" State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 564 , 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (quoting State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 9, 270 P.3d 1142 [2012]).

2021State v. Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. 11, 24 , 321 P.3d 1 (2014).

2021State v. Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. 11, 24 , 321 P.3d 1 (2014).

2021See State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280 , 1302, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019); Plummer, 295 Kan. at 162-63 .

2020To determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that an ex parte communication between a trial judge and jurors affected the verdict, our court examines: "(1) the overall strength of the prosecution's case; (2) whether an objection was lodged; (3) whether the ex parte communication concerned a critical aspect of the trial or involved an innocuous and insignificant matter; and (4) the ability of the posttrial remedy to mitigate the constitutional error." Martinez, 288 Kan. at 450 .

2020Ed. 2d 705 [1967]). 24 We consider several factors in reviewing the erroneous exclusion of evidence, including: "'the importance of the witness' testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the case.'" State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 434-35 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

2020Ed. 2d 705 [1967]). 24 We consider several factors in reviewing the erroneous exclusion of evidence, including: "'the importance of the witness' testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the case.'" State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 434-35 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

2020If it did, then the party benefiting from the error must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the trial record, meaning "there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict." 294 Kan. 519 , Syl. ¶ 13.

2020But if the error did not affect constitutional rights, the party benefiting from the error need only show that there is a "reasonable probability that the error will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." 294 Kan. 519 , Syl. ¶ 13.

2017State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 560 , 331 P.3d 781 (2014).

2017State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 560 , 331 P.3d 781 (2014).

2016State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1110 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013).” Lewis, 299 Kan. at 848-49 .

2016State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1110 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013)." Lewis, 299 Kan. at 848-49 .

2016Discussion Louis relies on State v. Finley, 273 Kan. 237 , 42 P.3d 723 (2002), to argue the prosecutor's statement was misconduct.

2016Discussion Louis relies on State v. Finley, 273 Kan. 237 , 42 P.3d 723 (2002), to argue the prosecutor's statement was misconduct.

2016If the constitutional error is reversible, an appellate court need not analyze whether the lower standard for harmlessness under K.S.A. 60-261 also has been met. [Citation omitted.] Under both standards, the party benefiting from the error bears the burden to demonstrate harmlessness. [Citation omitted.]" Hudgins, 301 Kan. at 646 - 47.

2015Kansas City Mall Assocs. v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County/KCK, 294 Kan. 1, 8 , 272 P.3d 600 (2012).

2015Kansas City Mall Assocs. v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte County/KCK, 294 Kan. 1, 8 , 272 P.3d 600 (2012).

2014For authority on tire standard of review in juror misconduct cases, both parties cite State v. Fenton, 228 Kan. 658, 664 , 620 P.2d 813 (1980), in which the court stated that the party claiming prejudice has the burden of establishing such prejudice.

2014For authority on tire standard of review in juror misconduct cases, both parties cite State v. Fenton, 228 Kan. 658, 664 , 620 P.2d 813 (1980), in which the court stated that the party claiming prejudice has the burden of establishing such prejudice.

2013In Bell, 266 Kan. 896 , the trial court responded to the jury’s question outside the presence of the defendant, but the court’s answer accurately stated the law and placed no undue emphasis on the defendant’s guilt or innocence.