11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2008 0 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. Wickliffegreen1 sentence2001See State v. Wickliffe, 16 Kan. | 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. Fike
green
2 sentences2000If the statutory elements of the two crimes do not meet the statutory elements analysis, then the second step requires the facts as alleged in die charging document and as must be proven at trial to be considered.” 243 Kan. 365 , Syl. ¶ 2. 2000If die statutory elements of die two crimes do not meet the statutory elements analysis dien die facts as alleged in the charging document and the facts which must be proven at trial must be considered.” 243 Kan. at 369 . | 6 | 1989–2000 |
State v. Gibson
green
2 sentences1994If the factual allegations in the charging document allege a lesser crime which does not meet the statutory elements test and the evidence which must be adduced at trial for the purpose of proving the crime as charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime, the latter is an ‘included crime’ under the definition in 21-3107(2)(d).” In State v. Gibson, 246 Kan. 298, 300 , 787 P.2d 1176 (1990), we cautioned against confusing what the State may actually prove in its evidence with what the State was required to prove to establish the crime charged, stating: “The mere fact that the evidence ad 1994If the factual allegations in the charging document allege a lesser crime which does not meet the statutory elements test and the evidence which must be adduced at trial for the purpose of proving the crime as charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime, the latter is an ‘included crime’ under the definition in 21-3107(2)(d).” In State v. Gibson, 246 Kan. 298, 300 , 787 P.2d 1176 (1990), we cautioned against confusing what the State may actually prove in its evidence with what the State was required to prove to establish the crime charged, stating: “The mere fact that the evidence ad | 2 | 1992–1994 |
State v. Alderete
green
1 sentence2008“The current test no longer takes into account the factual nuances of a specific case as they may bear on satisfaction of the statutory elements of both crimes under examination.” Alderete, 285 Kan. at 362 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Warren
green
2 sentences1994State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169 , Syl. ¶ 9, 843 P.2d 224 (1992). 1994State v. Warren, 252 Kan. 169 , Syl. ¶ 9, 843 P.2d 224 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Brewer
green
1 sentence1991If the factual allegations in the charging document allege a lesser crime which does not meet the statutory elements test and the evidence which must be adduced at trial for the purpose of proving the crime as charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime, the latter is an ‘included crime’ under the definition in 21-3107(2)(d).” Under K.S.A. 21-3107, “a person cannot be convicted of two or more separate crimes if one is either a lesser included, or a crime necessarily proved by proof of another crime.” State v. Brewer, 11 Kan. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.