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.
10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 1 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. Torresgreen2 sentences2020See also State v. Satchell, 311 Kan. ___ , 2020 WL 3479152 , at *7 (2020) (clarifying that the risk of undue prejudice must "substantially outweigh" the evidence's probative value, despite occasional shorthand references in some cases omitting the word "substantially"). 8 If the evidence fulfills the three prongs, it is admissible, but the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction "telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose)." Torres, 294 Kan. at 140 ; see Haygood, 308 Kan. at 2018If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).' " Richard , 300 Kan. at 721 , 333 P.3d 179 (quoting State v. Torres, 294 Kan. 135 , 139-40, 273 P.3d 729 [2012] ). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Gunbygreen2 sentences2008See Gunby, 282 Kan. at 56-57 , 144 P.3d 647 . 2008See Gunby, 282 Kan. at 56-57 , 144 P.3d 647 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Inkelaar
green
2 sentences2013“If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).” Torres, 294 Kan. at 139 -40 (citing State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 424 , 264 P.3d 81 [2011]). 2013“If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).” Torres, 294 Kan. at 139 -40 (citing State v. Inkelaar, 293 Kan. 414, 424 , 264 P.3d 81 [2011]). | 2 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Evans
green
1 sentence2026Kansas limits the admission of "prior bad acts evidence." See State v. Evans, 313 Kan. 972 , 987, 492 P.3d 418 (2021) (analyzing whether the court erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence). "[E]vidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove such person's disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion." K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 60-455(a). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Haygood
green
1 sentence2020"If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Haygood, 308 Kan. 1387 , 1392-93, 430 P.3d 11 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Richard
green
2 sentences2018If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).' " Richard , 300 Kan. at 721 , 333 P.3d 179 (quoting State v. Torres, 294 Kan. 135 , 139-40, 273 P.3d 729 [2012] ). 2018If the evidence meets all of these requirements, it is admitted, but in a jury trial the district court must give the jury a limiting instruction telling the jury the specific purpose for which the evidence has been admitted (and reminding them that it may only be considered for that purpose).' " Richard , 300 Kan. at 721 , 333 P.3d 179 (quoting State v. Torres, 294 Kan. 135 , 139-40, 273 P.3d 729 [2012] ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.