reasonable doubt error in Kansas

495 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2026 128 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.

Followed or applied (33)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Wardgreen kan · 2011 · cited in 171 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2026 2 sentences 2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must prove "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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]). 2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must prove "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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]).	12	171
State v. Frairegreen kan · 2021 · cited in 15 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2026 2 sentences 2025Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate "'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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" Sherman, 305 Kan. at 109; see also State v. Fraire, 312 Kan. 786 , 791-92, 481 P.3d 129 (2021). 2024In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate '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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016). 10 See also State v. Fraire, 312 Kan. 786 , 791-92, 481 P.3d 129 (2021).	12	15
Chapman v. Californiared scotus · 1967 · cited in 82 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1979–2026 2 sentences 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.	10	82
State v. Blansettgreen kan · 2019 · cited in 11 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2022In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate '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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" See also State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 412 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019). 2022In other words, prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate '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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" See also State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 412 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019).	10	11
State v. Herbelgreen kan · 2013 · cited in 12 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2024 2 sentences 2024A constitutional error is harmless only if the party benefitting from the error establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the error will not or did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record. 296 Kan. at 1110 . 2016But for constitutional error, the court applies the test articulated in Chapman , under which an error may be declared harmless only *732 when it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the error will not or did not affect the trial’s outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., when there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict. 296 Kan. at 1109-10 .	6	12
State v. Kleypasgreen kan · 2001 · cited in 7 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024 2 sentences 2024See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1084 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002) (discussing prosecutorial misconduct, applying Chapman's constitutional error standard, and stating that "[a] constitutional error may be declared harmless where the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained"). 2024See State v. Kleypas, 272 Kan. 894, 1084 , 40 P.3d 139 (2001), cert. denied 537 U.S. 834 (2002) (discussing prosecutorial misconduct, applying Chapman's constitutional error standard, and stating that "[a] constitutional error may be declared harmless where the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained").	4	7
State v. Raskiegreen kan · 2012 · cited in 5 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2024 2 sentences 2015In answering this question, the State, as the party “benefitting from the prosecutorial misconduct, bears the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect tire defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility tire error affected the verdict.” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 431 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 918 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (finding prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of tire entire record).” As recounted above, the State presented overwhelming evidence (e. 2015In answering this question, the State, as the party “benefitting from the prosecutorial misconduct, bears the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect tire defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility tire error affected the verdict.” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 431 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 918 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (finding prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of tire entire record).” As recounted above, the State presented overwhelming evidence (e.	4	5
Allen v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Divisiongreen scotus · 2002 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2024	3	4
State v. Johnsongreen kan · 2019 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022	3	3
Bingham v. United Statesgreen scotus · 2012 · cited in 42 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2012–2022 2 sentences 2022Next, "[i]f error is found, the appellate court must [then] determine whether the error prejudiced the defendant's due process rights to a fair trial." 305 Kan. at 109. 7 "[P]rosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate '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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 , 132 S. Ct. 1594 , 1 2022Next, "[i]f error is found, the appellate court must [then] determine whether the error prejudiced the defendant's due process rights to a fair trial." 305 Kan. at 109. 7 "[P]rosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate '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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 , 132 S. Ct. 1594 , 1	2	42
State v. Whitegreen kan · 1990 · cited in 17 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1991–2001 2 sentences 2001That rule provides: “ "An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ Crease v. State, 252 Kan. 326, 334 , 845 P.2d 27 (1992) (quoting State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff'd as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d 2001That rule provides: “ "An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ Crease v. State, 252 Kan. 326, 334 , 845 P.2d 27 (1992) (quoting State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff'd as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d	2	17
State v. Atkinsongreen kan · 2003 · cited in 5 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2005–2008 2 sentences 2008Compare State v. Atkinson, 276 Kan. 920, 925 , 80 P.3d 1143 (2003) (constitutional error harmless if appellate court “willing to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial”), and K.S.A. 60-261 (reversal not required unless refusal to grant it “inconsistent with substantial justice,” error affected party’s “substantial rights”); see State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423 , 85 P.3d 1226 (2004). 2008Compare State v. Atkinson, 276 Kan. 920, 925 , 80 P.3d 1143 (2003) (constitutional error harmless if appellate court “willing to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial”), and K.S.A. 60-261 (reversal not required unless refusal to grant it “inconsistent with substantial justice,” error affected party’s “substantial rights”); see State v. Jones, 277 Kan. 413, 423 , 85 P.3d 1226 (2004).	2	5
State v. Johnson-Howellgreen kan · 1994 · cited in 5 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1996–1998	2	5
State v. Jamesgreen kan · 2015 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2022	2	4
State v. Ochsgreen kan · 2013 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2013–2014	2	3
Delaware v. Van Arsdallgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1993–2006	2	3
State v. Krissgreen · 1982 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022	2	2
Kansas v. Boettgergreen scotus · 2020 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022	2	2
Ward v. Kansasgreen scotus · 2012 · cited in 23 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2026 2 sentences 2026Harmlessness When a constitutional right is implicated and an error is found, "the party benefitting from the error" must prove "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., that there "is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Swindler, 296 Kan. 670, 684 , 294 P.3d 308 (2013) (citing State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]). 2025Under that test, 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., . . . there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , Syl. ¶ 8, 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011], cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]).	1	23
State v. Whitegreen kan · 1990 · cited in 12 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1993–2001 2 sentences 2001That rule provides: “ "An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ Crease v. State, 252 Kan. 326, 334 , 845 P.2d 27 (1992) (quoting State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff'd as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d 2001That rule provides: “ "An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations omitted.] Thus, before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ Crease v. State, 252 Kan. 326, 334 , 845 P.2d 27 (1992) (quoting State v. White, 246 Kan. 28, 37 , 785 P.2d 950 , aff'd as modified 246 Kan. 393 , 789 P.2d	1	12
State v. Albrightgreen kan · 2007 · cited in 8 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2011 2 sentences 2011Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. [2010 Supp.] 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is not erroneous if party's substantial rights were not affected] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 [ reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' State v. Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." State v. 2010Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [ 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' Albright, 283 Kan. at 428 [ 153 P.3d 497 ]." McReynolds, 288 Kan. at 323 , 202 P.3d 658 .	1	8
State v. McGinnesgreen kan · 1998 · cited in 7 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2000–2017 2 sentences 2009Before an error of constitutional magnitude may be declared harmless, the appellate court must be able to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial. 266 Kan. 121 , Syl. ¶ 3. 2001“Before an error of constitutional magnitude may be declared harmless, the appellate court must be able to decide beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” State v. McGinnes, 266 Kan. 121 , Syl. ¶ 3.	1	7
State v. Toshred kan · 2004 · cited in 6 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2006–2011 2 sentences 2009Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial), have been met. 278 Kan. 83 , Syl. ¶ 2. 2007Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met.” State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , Syl. ¶ 2, 91 P.3d 1204 (2004).	1	6
State v. Bolze-Sanngreen kan · 2015 · cited in 5 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"the party benefitting from the error proves 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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 . 2016See 302 Kan. at 216 . *768 As we recently said: “Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if "’tire party benefitting from the error proves 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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ ” Verser, 299 Kan. at 789 (quoting Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6); see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.	1	5
State v. Browngreen kan · 2014 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2015–2024	1	4
State v. Naputigreen kan · 2011 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2011–2024	1	4
Crease v. Stategreen kan · 1993 · cited in 4 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1996–2001	1	4
Sullivan v. Louisianagreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1997–2024	1	3
State v. Mitchellgreen kan · 2000 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2001–2019	1	3
State v. Clarkgreen kan · 1997 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2003–2014	1	3
State v. Laturnergreen kan · 2009 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2010–2011	1	3
State v. Thompsongreen kan · 1976 · cited in 3 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1978–1997	1	3
State v. Brammergreen kan · 2015 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (47)

Case	Cited	Years
Seymour v. United States green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), which we have long summarized as follows: "[T]he error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves 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). 2017Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), harmless error standard provides that "'error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the 31 outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012) (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 )." State v. Brown, 298 Kan. 1040, 1050-51 , 318 P.3d 1005 (2014).	29	2008–2026
State v. McReynolds green kan · 2009 2 sentences 2022Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . . . changed the result of the trial], have been met.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009). 2022Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error . . . changed the result of the trial], have been met.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 323 , 202 P.3d 658 (2009).	8	2010–2022
Berger v. New York green scotus · 1967 2 sentences 2015The constitutional, or Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , [ 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967), harmless error standard provides that " 'error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves 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. , where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' State v. Ward , 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied [ 565 U.S. 2012As stated in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011): "If the fundamental failure does infringe upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the trial court should apply the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 [ 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 ] (1967), in which case the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in l	8	2008–2015
State v. Swinney green kan · 2006 2 sentences 2008Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors, unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman [ v. California ], 386 U.S. 18 , [ 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 , 87 S.Ct. 1283 , 18 L.Ed.2d 241 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]" Swinney, 280 Kan. at 780 , 127 P.3d 261 . 2008Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial)], have been met. [Citations omitted.]” 280 Kan. at 779-80 .	8	2007–2008
State v. McClanahan green kan · 1996 2 sentences 1998Before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” State v. McClanahan, 259 Kan. 86, 102 , 910 P.2d 193 (1996). 1998Before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.” State v. McClanahan, 259 Kan. 86, 102 , 910 P.2d 193 (1996).	8	1997–2005
State v. Sprague green kan · 2015 2 sentences 2021We continue to acknowledge that the statutory harmlessness test also applies to prosecutorial error, but when 'analyzing both constitutional and nonconstitutional error, an appellate court need only address the higher standard of constitutional error.' State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 430 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015)." When considering whether an error is harmless under Chapman, appellate courts must "consider any and all alleged indicators of prejudice, as argued by the parties, and then determine whether the State has met its burden—i.e., shown that there is no reasonable possibility that the error 2021We continue to acknowledge that the statutory harmlessness test also applies to prosecutorial error, but when 'analyzing both constitutional and nonconstitutional error, an appellate court need only address the higher standard of constitutional error.' State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 430 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015)." When considering whether an error is harmless under Chapman, appellate courts must "consider any and all alleged indicators of prejudice, as argued by the parties, and then determine whether the State has met its burden—i.e., shown that there is no reasonable possibility that the error	6	2016–2021
State v. Verser green kan · 2014 2 sentences 2020"Under the constitutional harmless error standard, we may declare an error harmless only if '"the party benefitting from the error proves 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., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to 8 the verdict."' [State v.] Verser, 299 Kan. [776,] 789[, 326 P.3d 1046 (2014)] (quoting [State v.] Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl ¶ 6[, 256 P.3d 801 2011 ]). " Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 216 . 2018"Please refer to the instructions provided to you." Standard of Review When the same acts or omissions violated both the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights, an appellate court applies "only the more rigorous of the two harmless error standards-the federal constitutional harmless error standard. [Citations omitted.] Under the federal standard, 'error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves 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.' " State v. Verser , 2	6	2015–2020
State v. Bell green kan · 1999 2 sentences 2013The Bell court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not change the verdict. 266 Kan. at 920 . 2005Thus, before an appellate court may declare the error harmless, it must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial." State v. Bell, 266 Kan. 896 , Syl. ¶ 9, 975 P.2d 239 , cert. denied 528 U.S. 905 (1999).	6	2000–2013
State v. Brown green kan · 2005 2 sentences 2007Thus, before an appellate court may declare the error harmless, it must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Brown, 280 Kan. 65, 77 , 118 P.3d 1273 (2005). 2007Thus, before an appellate court may declare the error harmless, it must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Brown, 280 Kan. 65, 77 , 118 P.3d 1273 (2005).	6	2006–2007
State v. Blevins green kan · 2021 2 sentences 2026Second, if the court finds error, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the whole record, i.e., that "there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Blevins, 313 Kan. 413 , 428, 485 P.3d 1175 (2021); King, 308 Kan. at 30. 2025Second, if error is found, the State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the whole record, i.e., that "there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Blevins, 313 Kan. 413 , 428, 485 P.3d 1175 (2021); State v. King, 308 Kan. 16 , 30, 417 P.3d 1073 (2018).	5	2025–2026
Apprendi v. New Jersey green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2010Finally, Leaper argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to a higher sentence based upon a criminal history not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L. 2010Finally, Leaper argues that the district court erred in sentencing him to a higher sentence based upon a criminal history not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 147 L.	5	2006–2019
State v. Inkelaar green kan · 2011 2 sentences 2015In answering this question, the State, as the party “benefitting from the prosecutorial misconduct, bears the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect tire defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility tire error affected the verdict.” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 431 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 918 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (finding prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of tire entire record).” As recounted above, the State presented overwhelming evidence (e. 2015In answering this question, the State, as the party “benefitting from the prosecutorial misconduct, bears the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect tire defendant’s substantial rights, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility tire error affected the verdict.” State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 431 , 264 P.3d 81 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Raskie, 293 Kan. 906, 918 , 269 P.3d 1268 (2012) (finding prosecutor’s misstatement did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of tire entire record).” As recounted above, the State presented overwhelming evidence (e.	5	2012–2015
State v. Thompkins green kan · 2001 2 sentences 2007State v. Thompkins, 271 Kan. 324, 335 , 21 P.3d 997 (2001). 2007State v. Thompkins, 271 Kan. 324, 335 , 21 P.3d 997 (2001).	5	2003–2007
State v. Sanders green kan · 1995 2 sentences 2005Where die evidence of guilt is of such direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that evidence erroneously admitted or excluded in violation of a constitutional or statutory right could not have affected die result of the trial, such admission or exclusion is harmless.’ ” State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 96 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (quoting State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 418-19 , 904 P.2d 951 [1995]). 2005Where die evidence of guilt is of such direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that evidence erroneously admitted or excluded in violation of a constitutional or statutory right could not have affected die result of the trial, such admission or exclusion is harmless.’ ” State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 96 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004) (quoting State v. Sanders, 258 Kan. 409, 418-19 , 904 P.2d 951 [1995]).	5	1998–2005
State v. Chandler green kan · 2018	4	2018–2026
State v. Anderson green kan · 2012	4	2012–2024
State v. Longoria green kan · 2015	4	2020–2024
State v. Fisher green kan · 2016	4	2016–2020
State v. Lyons green kan · 1999	4	2001–2003
State v. Bowser green kan · 1993	4	1993–2001
State v. Hunter green kan · 1983	4	1983–1999
State v. Timley green kan · 2020	3	2021–2025
Miller v. State green kan · 2014	3	2014–2024
State v. Corey green kan · 2016	3	2024–2024
State v. Boothby green kan · 2019	3	2020–2020
State v. Hall green kan · 2011	3	2012–2012
State v. Henderson green kan · 2007	3	2007–2009
State v. Hebert green kan · 2004	3	2005–2008
State v. Leitner green kan · 2001	3	2003–2007
Simpson v. Illinois green scotus · 1999	3	2001–2005
State v. Donesay green kan · 1998	3	2000–2005
State v. Knapp green kan · 1983	3	1986–1988
State v. Swindler green kan · 2013	2	2015–2026
State v. Gallegos green kan · 2021	2	2026–2026
Doyle v. Ohio green scotus · 1976	2	2020–2026
State v. Crawford green kan · 2014	2	2016–2026
State v. Bennington green kan · 2011	2	2024–2025
State v. King green kan · 2018	2	2025–2025
State v. Butler green kan · 2018	2	2019–2024
State v. Noah green kan · 2007	2	2008–2024

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-261 (133) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (99) KS § K.S.A. § 60-404 (88) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (70) KS § K.S.A. § 60-460 (66) KS § K.S.A. § 60-401 (55) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3401 (54) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (44) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3420 (39) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3423 (39) KS § K.S.A. § 60-1507 (38) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3405 (37)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 1862 (1883–2026) TX 1722 (1911–2026) FL 748 (1973–2026) IL 678 (1905–2026) PA 508 (1919–2026) KS 495 (1925–2026) WA 404 (1930–2026) TN 357 (1970–2026) AZ 282 (1965–2026) GA 252 (1914–2026) OH 201 (1968–2026) ID 185 (1975–2026) NY 184 (1956–2024) CO 177 (1949–2026) LA 176 (1976–2026) MD 171 (1966–2026) MA 158 (1972–2026) HI 156 (1950–2026) IN 154 (1891–2026) WI 151 (1977–2026) MS 145 (1924–2026) MN 137 (1953–2026) AL 137 (1916–2024) CT 129 (1955–2025) MO 107 (1889–2023) NJ 105 (1967–2026) SC 103 (1976–2026) DC 101 (1969–2026) MI 92 (1968–2026) NC 86 (1898–2023) IA 81 (1878–2024) KY 76 (1922–2026) NH 74 (1976–2025) UT 73 (1970–2026) OR 70 (1894–2026) NV 69 (1967–2026) AR 68 (1908–2025) VA 65 (1919–2026) NM 53 (1947–2025) WV 53 (1912–2023) DE 42 (1979–2026) SD 42 (1911–2022) OK 39 (1973–2025) RI 36 (1971–2026) ME 32 (1971–2024) MT 31 (1974–2024) VT 25 (1899–2026) ND 23 (1977–2021) WY 22 (1974–2025) AK 20 (1975–2025) NE 19 (1968–2022) VI 3 (1995–2015) GU 2 (2025–2025)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check