development defense in Kansas

2022The charging document "sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in the accusation." State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815 , Syl. ¶ 4, 347 P.3d 211 (2015).

2022The charging document "sets out the specific offense alleged to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusation, to permit the development of a defense to meet that accusation, and to protect against conviction based on facts not contemplated in the accusation." State v. McClelland, 301 Kan. 815 , Syl. ¶ 4, 347 P.3d 211 (2015).

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1978It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183, 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

1984It is sufficient to point out that in the very early Kansas cases of Thomas v. Sweet, 37 Kan. 183 , 14 P. 545 ; Mulvane v. O’Brien, 58 Kan. 463 , 49 P. 607 ; Stewart v. Harris, 69 Kan. 498 , 77 P. 277 ; Peckham v. Lane, 81 Kan. 489 , 106 P. 464 ; Consolidated Oil, Gas & Mfg.

2009See Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, 284 Kan. 547, 556-57 , 161 P.3d 695 (2007); Casco v. Armour SwiftEckrich, 283 Kan. 508, 524-25 , 154 P.3d 494 (2007).

2009See Graham v. Dokter Trucking Group, 284 Kan. 547, 556-57 , 161 P.3d 695 (2007); Casco v. Armour SwiftEckrich, 283 Kan. 508, 524-25 , 154 P.3d 494 (2007).

1997Without giving more explanation to the jury under the circumstances the trial court created the very ‘fear of the prompt release’ that prompted the development of the rule that the court may tell the jury something about the release procedures, and prevented the defendant from receiving fair consideration of his evidence of insanity. [State v.] Blake, [ 209 Kan. 196 , 495 P.2d 905 (1972)].” In State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559 , 534 P.2d 226 (1975), the claimed error was that the trial court instructed the jury as to the legal consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

1997Without giving more explanation to the jury under the circumstances the trial court created the very ‘fear of the prompt release’ that prompted the development of the rule that the court may tell the jury something about the release procedures, and prevented the defendant from receiving fair consideration of his evidence of insanity. [State v.] Blake, [ 209 Kan. 196 , 495 P.2d 905 (1972)].” In State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559 , 534 P.2d 226 (1975), the claimed error was that the trial court instructed the jury as to the legal consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

1997Without giving more explanation to the jury under the circumstances the trial court created the very ‘fear of the prompt release’ that prompted the development of the rule that the court may tell the jury something about the release procedures, and prevented the defendant from receiving fair consideration of his evidence of insanity. [State v.] Blake, [ 209 Kan. 196 , 495 P.2d 905 (1972)].” In State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559 , 534 P.2d 226 (1975), the claimed error was that the trial court instructed the jury as to the legal consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

1997Without giving more explanation to the jury under the circumstances the trial court created the very ‘fear of the prompt release’ that prompted the development of the rule that the court may tell the jury something about the release procedures, and prevented the defendant from receiving fair consideration of his evidence of insanity. [State v.] Blake, [ 209 Kan. 196 , 495 P.2d 905 (1972)].” In State v. Hamilton, 216 Kan. 559 , 534 P.2d 226 (1975), the claimed error was that the trial court instructed the jury as to the legal consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

1952We would not care to hold as a matter of law that this claim *553 was obviously invalid in view of wbat we held in Robertson v. Labette County Comm'rs, 122 Kan. 486 , 252 Pac. 196 .

1952We would not care to hold as a matter of law that this claim *553 was obviously invalid in view of wbat we held in Robertson v. Labette County Comm'rs, 122 Kan. 486 , 252 Pac. 196 .

1952In Reed v. Kansas Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 125 Kan. 603 , 264 Pac. 1065 , we held: “Where one in good faith asserts a claim not obviously invalid, worthless or frivolous, and which might be thought to be reasonably doubtful, the forbearance to prosecute such a claim will furnish a sufficient consideration for a promise of settlement and compromise of such claim.” The opinion contains a full discussion of the development of the rule.

1952In Reed v. Kansas Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 125 Kan. 603 , 264 Pac. 1065 , we held: “Where one in good faith asserts a claim not obviously invalid, worthless or frivolous, and which might be thought to be reasonably doubtful, the forbearance to prosecute such a claim will furnish a sufficient consideration for a promise of settlement and compromise of such claim.” The opinion contains a full discussion of the development of the rule.

1934In Rosenthal v. State Bar Examining Committee, 116 Conn. 409 , 165 Atl. 211 , it was said: “The practice of law is not a craft or a trade; it is a profession the main purpose of which is to aid in the doing of justice according to law between the state and individual and between man and man.

1934In Rosenthal v. State Bar Examining Committee, 116 Conn. 409 , 165 Atl. 211 , it was said: “The practice of law is not a craft or a trade; it is a profession the main purpose of which is to aid in the doing of justice according to law between the state and individual and between man and man.