reasonable probability error in Kansas

2016If the fundamental failure does infringe upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, tire trial court should apply the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman v. California 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2016If the fundamental failure does infringe upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, tire trial court should apply the constitutional harmless error analysis defined in Chapman v. California 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.

2025Also, "[o]nce a reviewing court has applied the reasonable probability test to determine if there is a Brady violation, there is no need for further harmless error review." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl.¶ 14, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).

2025Also, "[o]nce a reviewing court has applied the reasonable probability test to determine if there is a Brady violation, there is no need for further harmless error review." State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 , Syl.¶ 14, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).

2018The test is whether " 'there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.' " 306 Kan. at 943, 399 P.3d 148 (quoting Siruta v. Siruta , 301 Kan. 757 , 772-73, 348 P.3d 549 [2015] ).

2018The test is whether " 'there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.' " 306 Kan. at 943, 399 P.3d 148 (quoting Siruta v. Siruta , 301 Kan. 757 , 772-73, 348 P.3d 549 [2015] ).

2016For nonconstitutional error, the [trial] court applies K.S.A. 60-261 and determines “ ‘if there is a reasonable probability the error did or will affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.’” 296 Kan. at 1110 (quoting Ward, 292 Kan. 542 , Syl. ¶ 6).

2016But for constitutional error, the court applies the test articulated in Chapman , under which an error may be declared harmless only *732 when it is demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the error will not or did not affect the trial’s outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., when there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict. 296 Kan. at 1109-10 .

2022Hillard objected to the added language at trial, so "any error is reversible only if this court determines that there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 562, 478 P.3d 324 (2020).

2021Where a defendant preserves an objection, "any error is reversible only if this court determines that there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record." State v. Stanley, 312 Kan. 557 , 562, 478 P.3d 324 (2020).

2019"A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." 466 U.S. at 694 .

2013Ed. 2d 571 (2012) (Brady violation); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2026E.g., State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 , 181, 459 P.3d 173 (2020).

2024State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 949 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) (considering whether admission error under K.S.A. 60-456[b] was harmless under statutory harmless error standard, which requires reversal if there is a reasonable probability the error will or did affect outcome of trial); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569-70 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (error that infringes upon constitutional right harmless if benefitting party proves no reasonable possibility error affected verdict).

2024State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 949 , 270 P.3d 1165 (2012) (considering whether admission error under K.S.A. 60-456[b] was harmless under statutory harmless error standard, which requires reversal if there is a reasonable probability the error will or did affect outcome of trial); State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569-70 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (error that infringes upon constitutional right harmless if benefitting party proves no reasonable possibility error affected verdict).

2024Therefore, he argues there was a reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome. 29 Wojtczuk's argument is similar to that asserted in State v. Sims, 308 Kan. 1488 , 431 P.3d 288 (2018).

2022"When assessing prejudice, '[t]he focus of the inquiry is on the impact of the error on the verdict.'" State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 411, 486 P.3d 551 (2021).

2021State v. Keyes, 312 Kan. 103 , 107, 472 P.3d 78 (2020).

2020We review any erroneous exclusion of evidence under the harmless error test enumerated in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60- 11 261 "which asks whether 'there is a reasonable probability that the error did or will affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 434 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]).

2020We review any erroneous exclusion of evidence under the harmless error test enumerated in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60- 11 261 "which asks whether 'there is a reasonable probability that the error did or will affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.'" State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 434 , 329 P.3d 1169 (2014) (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 [2011]).

2020See State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 408 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019); State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 554-55 , 331 P.3d 781 (2014).

2020See State v. Blansett, 309 Kan. 401, 408 , 435 P.3d 1136 (2019); State v. Brown, 300 Kan. 542, 554-55 , 331 P.3d 781 (2014).

2019State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 701 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015) (quoting State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 511 , 277 P.3d 1111 [2012]).

2019State v. Moore, 302 Kan. 685, 701 , 357 P.3d 275 (2015) (quoting State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 511 , 277 P.3d 1111 [2012]).

2015If, on the other hand, a party fails to preserve an objection to the jury instructions by not raising the argument before the district court, we will still review whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate but will reverse only for “clear error.” Williams, 295 Kan. at 510, 516 . “ ‘An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility that the juiy would have returned a different verdict.’ ” Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 581 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998); see Williams, 295 Ka

2015If, on the other hand, a party fails to preserve an objection to the jury instructions by not raising the argument before the district court, we will still review whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate but will reverse only for “clear error.” Williams, 295 Kan. at 510, 516 . “ ‘An instruction is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court reaches a firm conviction that if the trial error had not occurred there was a real possibility that the juiy would have returned a different verdict.’ ” Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 581 , 962 P.2d 445 (1998); see Williams, 295 Ka

2014Factors an appellate court can consider in reviewing the erroneous exclusion of evidence for harmless error include: “the importance of the witness’ testimony, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the case.” Ultreras, 296 Kan. 828 , Syl. ¶ 11.

2013With errors affecting criminal convictions, a reasonable probability standard requires the reviewing court to conclude that the “likelihood” of a different verdict “undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial,” a threshold less substantial than finding a different verdict to be “more likely tiran not.” Smith v. Cain, 561 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 , 181 L.

2013With errors affecting criminal convictions, a reasonable probability standard requires the reviewing court to conclude that the “likelihood” of a different verdict “undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial,” a threshold less substantial than finding a different verdict to be “more likely tiran not.” Smith v. Cain, 561 U.S. _ , 132 S. Ct. 627, 630 , 181 L.