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 1998–2026 4 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. Stonegreen2 sentences2021The Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the prosecutor could comment "on the efficacy of Wilson's defense by pointing out to the jury where Wilson's version of events logically broke down." 295 Kan. at 624 ; see, e.g., State v. Williams, 299 43 Kan. 911 , 937, 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (prosecutor's statement to the jury that "'[t]he defense has subpoena power identical to the State,'" suggesting that the defense could have called witnesses to contradict the victim's story, did not shift burden of proof); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 18-19 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (prosecutor's statement that 2021The Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the prosecutor could comment "on the efficacy of Wilson's defense by pointing out to the jury where Wilson's version of events logically broke down." 295 Kan. at 624 ; see, e.g., State v. Williams, 299 43 Kan. 911 , 937, 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (prosecutor's statement to the jury that "'[t]he defense has subpoena power identical to the State,'" suggesting that the defense could have called witnesses to contradict the victim's story, did not shift burden of proof); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 18-19 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (prosecutor's statement that | 1 | 2 |
State v. Petersongreen1 sentence2026See Peterson, 296 Kan. at 571 ("'[E]ven where the [S]tate has agreed to stand silent or make no recommendation, it may nonetheless correct factual misstatements and provide the court with relevant information that is not in the court's possession.' [Emphasis added.]") (quoting Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383 , 388 n.4, 990 P.2d 1258 [1999]). 10 We recognize that the State's problematic statements were sandwiched between its opening and closing caveats that it did not oppose Wilson's motion for a dispositional departure. | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Peterson, 296 Kan. at 571 ("'[E]ven where the [S]tate has agreed to stand silent or make no recommendation, it may nonetheless correct factual misstatements and provide the court with relevant information that is not in the court's possession.' [Emphasis added.]") (quoting Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383 , 388 n.4, 990 P.2d 1258 [1999]). 10 We recognize that the State's problematic statements were sandwiched between its opening and closing caveats that it did not oppose Wilson's motion for a dispositional departure. 2026See Peterson, 296 Kan. at 571 ("'[E]ven where the [S]tate has agreed to stand silent or make no recommendation, it may nonetheless correct factual misstatements and provide the court with relevant information that is not in the court's possession.' [Emphasis added.]") (quoting Sullivan v. State, 115 Nev. 383 , 388 n.4, 990 P.2d 1258 [1999]). 10 We recognize that the State's problematic statements were sandwiched between its opening and closing caveats that it did not oppose Wilson's motion for a dispositional departure. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2021The Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the prosecutor could comment "on the efficacy of Wilson's defense by pointing out to the jury where Wilson's version of events logically broke down." 295 Kan. at 624 ; see, e.g., State v. Williams, 299 43 Kan. 911 , 937, 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (prosecutor's statement to the jury that "'[t]he defense has subpoena power identical to the State,'" suggesting that the defense could have called witnesses to contradict the victim's story, did not shift burden of proof); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 18-19 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (prosecutor's statement that | 1 | 1 |
Mattox v. Stategreen2 sentences2014See Mattox v. State, 293 Kan. 723, 725-26 , 267 P.3d 746 (2011). 2014See Mattox v. State, 293 Kan. 723, 725-26 , 267 P.3d 746 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008). 2012See State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ivorygreen2 sentences2012See State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46 , 41 P.3d 781 [2002]). 2012See State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46 , 41 P.3d 781 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ho K. Duonggreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824, 832-33 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011) (holding prosecutor’s arguments questioning Duong’s failure to present evidence of misidentification did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense because prosecutor did not call upon defense to disprove the occurrence of a crime but rather pointed out that evidence supporting defense theory was thin); Stone, 291 Kan. at 18 (finding prosecutor’s statements that defendant had “ ‘obstacles to overcome’ ” were within considerable latitude granted to prosecutors to comment on the weaknesses of defenses); State v. B 2012See, e.g., State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824, 832-33 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011) (holding prosecutor’s arguments questioning Duong’s failure to present evidence of misidentification did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense because prosecutor did not call upon defense to disprove the occurrence of a crime but rather pointed out that evidence supporting defense theory was thin); Stone, 291 Kan. at 18 (finding prosecutor’s statements that defendant had “ ‘obstacles to overcome’ ” were within considerable latitude granted to prosecutors to comment on the weaknesses of defenses); State v. B | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fewellgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46 , 41 P.3d 781 [2002]). 2012See State v. Fewell, 286 Kan. 370, 396 , 184 P.3d 903 (2008) (reaffirming State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 46 , 41 P.3d 781 [2002]). | 1 | 1 |
Summage v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012See State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 22-23 , 159 P.3d 161 (2007), cert. denied 552 U.S. 1104 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burdengreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824, 832-33 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011) (holding prosecutor’s arguments questioning Duong’s failure to present evidence of misidentification did not improperly shift the burden of proof to the defense because prosecutor did not call upon defense to disprove the occurrence of a crime but rather pointed out that evidence supporting defense theory was thin); Stone, 291 Kan. at 18 (finding prosecutor’s statements that defendant had “ ‘obstacles to overcome’ ” were within considerable latitude granted to prosecutors to comment on the weaknesses of defenses); State v. B | 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. Paul
green
2 sentences2025Furthermore, the Wilson rule was overturned in State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 665 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008). 2025Furthermore, the Wilson rule was overturned in State v. Paul, 285 Kan. 658, 665 , 175 P.3d 840 (2008). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Roderick
green
2 sentences2025Roderick and the Wilson rule In arriving at its decision, the district court relied on the Wilson rule as articulated in Roderick, 259 Kan. at 112 . 2025Roderick and the Wilson rule In arriving at its decision, the district court relied on the Wilson rule as articulated in Roderick, 259 Kan. at 112 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2025That rule provides "'where there are multiple convictions obtained on the same date for offenses committed at different times or places, the multiple convictions can be used only as a single conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement.'" 259 Kan. at 112 (citing State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. 2025That rule provides "'where there are multiple convictions obtained on the same date for offenses committed at different times or places, the multiple convictions can be used only as a single conviction for the purpose of sentence enhancement.'" 259 Kan. at 112 (citing State v. Wilson, 6 Kan. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Daniel
green
2 sentences2023The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides "the same protection from unlawful government searches and seizures as the Fourth Amendment." State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 498 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010). 2023The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, protects "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides "the same protection from unlawful government searches and seizures as the Fourth Amendment." State v. Daniel, 291 Kan. 490, 498 , 242 P.3d 1186 (2010). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2021The Kansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the prosecutor could comment "on the efficacy of Wilson's defense by pointing out to the jury where Wilson's version of events logically broke down." 295 Kan. at 624 ; see, e.g., State v. Williams, 299 43 Kan. 911 , 937, 329 P.3d 400 (2014) (prosecutor's statement to the jury that "'[t]he defense has subpoena power identical to the State,'" suggesting that the defense could have called witnesses to contradict the victim's story, did not shift burden of proof); State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 18-19 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010) (prosecutor's statement that | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2018Wilson , 301 Kan. at 406 -07 , 343 P.3d 102 . 2018Wilson , 301 Kan. at 406 -07 , 343 P.3d 102 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Edgar v. State
green
2 sentences2014The benchmark for judging Wilson’s claim was whether his attorney’s conduct “so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process” ’ ” that the district court could not rely on his trial “ ‘ “having produced a just result.” ’ ” Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828, 837 , 283 P.3d 152 (2012). 2014The benchmark for judging Wilson’s claim was whether his attorney’s conduct “so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process” ’ ” that the district court could not rely on his trial “ ‘ “having produced a just result.” ’ ” Edgar v. State, 294 Kan. 828, 837 , 283 P.3d 152 (2012). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Tosh
red
2 sentences2012Wilson cites State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004), in suppoi't of his argument. 2012Wilson cites State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004), in suppoi't of his argument. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Spain
green
2 sentences2008App. 2d at 699 - Quoting this court’s decision in State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 711 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998), Bandy noted that “ ‘ “[W]hen the legislature revises an existing law, it is presumed that the legislature intended to change the law as it existed prior to the amendment.” ’ [Citation omitted.]” 25 Kan. 2008App. 2d at 699 - Quoting this court’s decision in State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 711 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998), Bandy noted that “ ‘ “[W]hen the legislature revises an existing law, it is presumed that the legislature intended to change the law as it existed prior to the amendment.” ’ [Citation omitted.]” 25 Kan. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bellamy v. State
green
1 sentence2008As a result, this court has unlimited review of the evidence presented to the district court. 285 Kan. at 354 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Bandy
green
2 sentences2008Bandy considered the legislative history of both the HCA and the KSGA and concluded that “[t]he KSGA has all but ehminated the HCA and, thus, the accompanying Wilson rule.” 25 Kan. 2008App. 2d at 699 - Quoting this court’s decision in State v. Spain, 263 Kan. 708, 711 , 953 P.2d 1004 (1998), Bandy noted that “ ‘ “[W]hen the legislature revises an existing law, it is presumed that the legislature intended to change the law as it existed prior to the amendment.” ’ [Citation omitted.]” 25 Kan. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Thompson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2008The Thompson court noted a conflict between the earlier HCA jurisprudence under Wilson and the later definition of a prior conviction under the KSGA, as discussed by the Court of Appeals in Bandy : On the one hand, under the Wilson rule “there must be *669 the commission and conviction of a first offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a second offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a third offense.” Thompson, 32 Kan. 2008The Thompson court noted a conflict between the earlier HCA jurisprudence under Wilson and the later definition of a prior conviction under the KSGA, as discussed by the Court of Appeals in Bandy : On the one hand, under the Wilson rule “there must be *669 the commission and conviction of a first offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a second offense, followed by the commission and conviction of a third offense.” Thompson, 32 Kan. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Grissom
green
2 sentences1998Previously, in State v. Grissom, 251 Kan. 851, 934 , 840 P.2d 1142 (1992), the court stated: "We also note the Wilson case is approaching 12 years of age and the legislature has had many chances to change it if we misinterpreted its intent. 1998Previously, in State v. Grissom, 251 Kan. 851, 934 , 840 P.2d 1142 (1992), the court stated: "We also note the Wilson case is approaching 12 years of age and the legislature has had many chances to change it if we misinterpreted its intent. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.