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.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 3 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. Williamsgreen1 sentence2024See Williams, 295 Kan. at 523-24 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Masqua
green
2 sentences1976“In cases where the crime charged may include some lesser crime it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury, not only as to the crime charged but as to all lesser crimes of which the accused might be found guilty under the information or indictment and upon the evidence adduced, even though such instructions have not been requested or have been objected to.” This duty arises only where clearly required by the evidence and where the defendant might reasonably be convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction is given (State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 ). 1976“In cases where the crime charged may include some lesser crime it is the duty of the trial court to instruct the jury, not only as to the crime charged but as to all lesser crimes of which the accused might be found guilty under the information or indictment and upon the evidence adduced, even though such instructions have not been requested or have been objected to.” This duty arises only where clearly required by the evidence and where the defendant might reasonably be convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction is given (State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 ). | 4 | 1975–1978 |
Sola-Morales v. State
green
2 sentences2024So Sola-Morales could not have suffered prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to the lesser offense instruction given to the jury." Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 886 . 2024So Sola-Morales could not have suffered prejudice from his counsel's failure to object to the lesser offense instruction given to the jury." Sola-Morales, 300 Kan. at 886 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Buckner
green
2 sentences1979State v. Buckner, 221 Kan. 117 , Syl. ¶ 1, 558 P.2d 1102 (1976). 1979State v. Buckner, 221 Kan. 117 , Syl. ¶ 1, 558 P.2d 1102 (1976). | 2 | 1978–1979 |
State v. Schriner
green
2 sentences1975S. A. 21-3403 [Weeks 1974].) On when the duty to instruct on lesser included offenses arises we said in State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 , Syl. ¶ 4: “The district court has an affirmative duty to instruct on lesser included offenses even in the absence of a request by defense counsel or the prosecution; however, that duty arises only where the omitted instruction is required by the evidence and under circumstances where the appellant might reasonably have been convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction had been given.” Similar holdings may be found in State v. Schriner, 215 1975S. A. 21-3403 [Weeks 1974].) On when the duty to instruct on lesser included offenses arises we said in State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 , Syl. ¶ 4: “The district court has an affirmative duty to instruct on lesser included offenses even in the absence of a request by defense counsel or the prosecution; however, that duty arises only where the omitted instruction is required by the evidence and under circumstances where the appellant might reasonably have been convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction had been given.” Similar holdings may be found in State v. Schriner, 215 | 2 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Coffman
neutral
2 sentences2004The amendment did not eliminate that possibility, but now a defendant, silent on the subject in the trial court, may have his or her conviction reversed for lack of a lesser offense instruction only if the failure to instruct was clearly erroneous. *55 Cordray relies on State v. Coffman, 260 Kan. 811 , 925 P.2d 419 (1996), in arguing that under the former law a defendant was entitled upon request to present an all-or-nothing defense, i.e., a defendant was entitled to juiy instructions on only the charged offense. 2004The amendment did not eliminate that possibility, but now a defendant, silent on the subject in the trial court, may have his or her conviction reversed for lack of a lesser offense instruction only if the failure to instruct was clearly erroneous. *55 Cordray relies on State v. Coffman, 260 Kan. 811 , 925 P.2d 419 (1996), in arguing that under the former law a defendant was entitled upon request to present an all-or-nothing defense, i.e., a defendant was entitled to juiy instructions on only the charged offense. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Smith v. Missouri
neutral
1 sentence1978(State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. den. 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 .) We have concluded, however, that there was not sufficient evidence introduced at the trial to raise a legitimate factual issue as to whether defendant had the capacity to form the requisite specific intent so as to require an instruction on unlawful restraint. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Baker v. Maryland
green
1 sentence1978(State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P.2d 728 , cert. den. 411 U.S. 951 , 36 L.Ed.2d 413 , 93 S.Ct. 1939 .) We have concluded, however, that there was not sufficient evidence introduced at the trial to raise a legitimate factual issue as to whether defendant had the capacity to form the requisite specific intent so as to require an instruction on unlawful restraint. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. McDermott
neutral
2 sentences1975State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423 , 532 P. 2d 1309 ; State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 , 523 P. 2d 703 ; State v. McDermott, 202 Kan. 399 , 449 P. 2d 545 . 1975State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423 , 532 P. 2d 1309 ; State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 , 523 P. 2d 703 ; State v. McDermott, 202 Kan. 399 , 449 P. 2d 545 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Pyle
green
2 sentences1975State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423 , 532 P. 2d 1309 ; State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 , 523 P. 2d 703 ; State v. McDermott, 202 Kan. 399 , 449 P. 2d 545 . 1975State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423 , 532 P. 2d 1309 ; State v. Schriner, 215 Kan. 86 , 523 P. 2d 703 ; State v. McDermott, 202 Kan. 399 , 449 P. 2d 545 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Hollaway
green
2 sentences1975S. A. 21-3403 [Weeks 1974].) On when the duty to instruct on lesser included offenses arises we said in State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 , Syl. ¶ 4: “The district court has an affirmative duty to instruct on lesser included offenses even in the absence of a request by defense counsel or the prosecution; however, that duty arises only where the omitted instruction is required by the evidence and under circumstances where the appellant might reasonably have been convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction had been given.” Similar holdings may be found in State v. Schriner, 215 1975S. A. 21-3403 [Weeks 1974].) On when the duty to instruct on lesser included offenses arises we said in State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419 , 502 P. 2d 728 , Syl. ¶ 4: “The district court has an affirmative duty to instruct on lesser included offenses even in the absence of a request by defense counsel or the prosecution; however, that duty arises only where the omitted instruction is required by the evidence and under circumstances where the appellant might reasonably have been convicted of a lesser offense if the instruction had been given.” Similar holdings may be found in State v. Schriner, 215 | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Winters
green
2 sentences1972(State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 ; State v. Mason, 208 Kan. 39 , 490 P. 2d 418 .) The facts do not merit a conclusion the instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter were appropriate. 1972(State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 ; State v. Mason, 208 Kan. 39 , 490 P. 2d 418 .) The facts do not merit a conclusion the instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter were appropriate. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Mason
green
2 sentences1972(State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 ; State v. Mason, 208 Kan. 39 , 490 P. 2d 418 .) The facts do not merit a conclusion the instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter were appropriate. 1972(State v. Winters, 81 Kan. 414 , 105 Pac. 516 ; State v. Mason, 208 Kan. 39 , 490 P. 2d 418 .) The facts do not merit a conclusion the instructions on second degree murder and manslaughter were appropriate. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.