general preservation rule in Kansas

2022Although we recognize several exceptions to this general preservation rule, see In re Estate of Broderick, 286 Kan. 1071, 1082 , 191 P.3d 284 (2008), Shelton does not assert an exception here.

2022Although we recognize several exceptions to this general preservation rule, see In re Estate of Broderick, 286 Kan. 1071, 1082 , 191 P.3d 284 (2008), Shelton does not assert an exception here.

2024The "prudential" exceptions to the general preservation rule arise when "'(1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative; (2) consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the trial court may be affirmed because it was right for the wrong reason.'" In the Interest of N.E., 316 Kan. 391 , 408, 516 P.3d 586 (2022) (quoting State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 768, 449 P.3d 756 [2019]).

2024The "prudential" exceptions to the general preservation rule arise when "'(1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is determinative; (2) consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the trial court may be affirmed because it was right for the wrong reason.'" In the Interest of N.E., 316 Kan. 391 , 408, 516 P.3d 586 (2022) (quoting State v. Perkins, 310 Kan. 764 , 768, 449 P.3d 756 [2019]).

2024When this court is asked to make an exception to the general preservation rule, its decision to do so "is a prudential one" and "[e]ven if an exception would support a decision to review a new claim, we have no obligation to do so." State v. Gray, 311 Kan. 164 , 170, 459 P.3d 165 (2020).

2022The difficulty with relying on the "ends of justice" exception is that this court must be able to consider the merits of the issue in order to determine whether justice demands its resolution: "'[T]o serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights, it follows that, on consideration, [this court] must find reversible error occurred.'" State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 160 , 194 P.3d 1195 (2008).

2022The difficulty with relying on the "ends of justice" exception is that this court must be able to consider the merits of the issue in order to determine whether justice demands its resolution: "'[T]o serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights, it follows that, on consideration, [this court] must find reversible error occurred.'" State v. Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157, 160 , 194 P.3d 1195 (2008).

2012In State v. Mason, 268 Kan. 37 , 986 P.2d 387 (1999), to which Luna referred, the court recited the general preservation rule with respect to constitutional grounds raised for the first time on appeal and described the “exceptional circumstances” which would allow an appellate court to nevertheless consider such issues.

2012In State v. Mason, 268 Kan. 37 , 986 P.2d 387 (1999), to which Luna referred, the court recited the general preservation rule with respect to constitutional grounds raised for the first time on appeal and described the “exceptional circumstances” which would allow an appellate court to nevertheless consider such issues.