Harris motion in Kansas

2026Appellate courts follow a three-step process when analyzing jury instruction issues on appeal: "(1) determining whether the issue is preserved for appeal; (2) considering the merits of the claim to determine whether error occurred below; and (3) assessing whether the error requires reversal." State v. Mendez, 319 Kan. 718 , 727, 559 P.3d 792 (2024).

2020The district court denied Harris' motion, finding the encounter voluntary based on the factors listed in State v. Young, 37 Kan.

2020App. 2d 700 , 157 P.3d 644 (2007).

2020As the Johnson Court acknowledged: "[W]e do not doubt the constitutionality of laws that call for the application of a qualitative standard such as 'substantial risk' to real-world conduct; 'the law is full of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly . . . some matter of degree[.]'" 135 S. Ct. at 2561 . 28 Yet today's majority now imposes a criteria that insists on "an explicit and objective standard of enforcement." No. 116,515, Syl.

2019It also reversed the district court's denial of Harris' motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, which was filed within two years after his conviction— 23 and thus, necessarily, his unchallenged sentence—were affirmed on appeal. 249 Kan. at 413-14 .

2019In doing so, the court cited State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 283 , 710 P.2d 676 (1985), for the proposition that "'[a] conviction is not considered final until the judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of an appeal has been exhausted, and the time for any rehearing or final review has passed.'" (Emphasis added.) Harris, 249 Kan. at 413 -414 (quoting Osbey, 234 Kan. at 283).

2019In doing so, the court cited State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 283 , 710 P.2d 676 (1985), for the proposition that "'[a] conviction is not considered final until the judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of an appeal has been exhausted, and the time for any rehearing or final review has passed.'" (Emphasis added.) Harris, 249 Kan. at 413 -414 (quoting Osbey, 234 Kan. at 283).

2019In doing so, the court cited State v. Osbey, 238 Kan. 280, 283 , 710 P.2d 676 (1985), for the proposition that "'[a] conviction is not considered final until the judgment of conviction has been rendered, the availability of an appeal has been exhausted, and the time for any rehearing or final review has passed.'" (Emphasis added.) Harris, 249 Kan. at 413 -414 (quoting Osbey, 234 Kan. at 283).

2018The court stated: "This is In re Hawver , 300 Kan. 1023 , 339 P.3d 573 .

2018The court stated: "This is In re Hawver , 300 Kan. 1023 , 339 P.3d 573 .

2015“This element ‘requires that the multiple killings be related to one another in some way, that they occur “as a part of the same act or transaction,” or “in two or more acts . . . connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct.’ ” State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560, 572 , 162 P.3d 28 (2007) (quoting K.S.A. 21-3439[a][6]).

2015“This element ‘requires that the multiple killings be related to one another in some way, that they occur “as a part of the same act or transaction,” or “in two or more acts . . . connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct.’ ” State v. Harris, 284 Kan. 560, 572 , 162 P.3d 28 (2007) (quoting K.S.A. 21-3439[a][6]).

2007The witness testified that both he and Harris were present during a conversation between two members of the Vice Lords gang (of which the defendant was also a member) that the prison guards were “ ‘cracking down’ on the Vice Lords.” 259 Kan. at 694 .

2004App. 2d 237 , 62 P.3d 672 (2003), the Court of Appeals addressed Harris’ claim that the district court failed to comply with Rule 183(j) when it issued a perfunctory denial of his 60-1507 motion.

1978In State v. Boone, 220 Kan. 758 , 556 P.2d 864 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rule was admissible in order to rebut the defendant’s trial testimony.

1978In State v. Boone, 220 Kan. 758 , 556 P.2d 864 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a statement obtained in violation of the Miranda rule was admissible in order to rebut the defendant’s trial testimony.