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.
12 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 4 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. Wardgreen2 sentences2014Hence, we need conduct our analysis only under the Chapman harmless error standard, under which “ ‘the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from tire 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 tire 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). 2014Hence, we need conduct our analysis only under the Chapman harmless error standard, under which “ ‘the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from tire 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 tire 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). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Ochsgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094 , [1100,] 306 P.3d 294, 299 (2013) (citing Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1110-11 .)” Todd takes issue with three comments the prosecutor made about Horton during closing argument. 2014See State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094 , [1100,] 306 P.3d 294, 299 (2013) (citing Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1110-11 .)” Todd takes issue with three comments the prosecutor made about Horton during closing argument. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Herbelgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094 , [1100,] 306 P.3d 294, 299 (2013) (citing Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1110-11 .)” Todd takes issue with three comments the prosecutor made about Horton during closing argument. 2013See State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094 , 306 P.3d 294, 299 (2013) (citing Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1110-11 ). | 1 | 2 |
Chapman v. Californiayellow1 sentence2014See Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6 (citing Chapman, 386 U.S. 18 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Inkelaarred1 sentence2014See Inkelaar, 293 Kan. at 436 . | 1 | 1 |
Satterwhite v. Texasgreen2 sentences2001See Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 100 L. 2001See Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249 , 100 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Follingreen2 sentences2001See State v. Follin, 263 Kan. 28, 45 , 947 P.2d 8 (1997) (stating that one factor to be considered in determining whether a new trial should be granted because of prosecutorial misconduct is whether the evidence against the defendant was so overwhelming that there was little or no likelihood the prosecutor’s prejudicial remarks changed the result of the trial). 2001See State v. Follin, 263 Kan. 28, 45 , 947 P.2d 8 (1997) (stating that one factor to be considered in determining whether a new trial should be granted because of prosecutorial misconduct is whether the evidence against the defendant was so overwhelming that there was little or no likelihood the prosecutor’s prejudicial remarks changed the result of the trial). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Toshred2 sentences2024This test was stated in State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004), overruled by State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 378 P.3d 1060 (2016): "In the second step of the two-step analysis for alleged prosecutorial misconduct the appellate court considers three factors to determine if the prosecutorial misconduct so prejudiced the jury against the defendant that a new trial should be granted: (1) whether the misconduct is gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct shows ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming n 2024This test was stated in State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004), overruled by State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 378 P.3d 1060 (2016): "In the second step of the two-step analysis for alleged prosecutorial misconduct the appellate court considers three factors to determine if the prosecutorial misconduct so prejudiced the jury against the defendant that a new trial should be granted: (1) whether the misconduct is gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct shows ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming n | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2014Hence, we need conduct our analysis only under the Chapman harmless error standard, under which “ ‘the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from tire 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 tire 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). 2013Hence, we need conduct our analysis only under the Chapman harmless error standard, under which “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 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). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Kleypas
yellow
1 sentence2016Thus, application of the 'overwhelming evidence test' as a 67 component of the Chapman harmless error analysis assumes that all of the mitigating circumstances claimed by the defendant exist." 272 Kan. at 1087 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Reeves
green
1 sentence1979State v. Reeves, 224 Kan. at 93 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.
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.