74 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 59 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. Roedergreen2 sentences2024State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). "'[A] prosecutor's improper comment or argument can be prejudicial, even if the [error] was extemporaneous and made under the stress of rebutting arguments made by defense counsel.'" State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 934 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (disavowing language in previous cases that defense provocation can justify prosecutorial misconduct); State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 429 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (stating the "'open-the-door rule does not insulate a prosecutor from a finding of misconduct'" when responding to defense arguments). 2024State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). "'[A] prosecutor's improper comment or argument can be prejudicial, even if the [error] was extemporaneous and made under the stress of rebutting arguments made by defense counsel.'" State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 934 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (disavowing language in previous cases that defense provocation can justify prosecutorial misconduct); State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 429 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (stating the "'open-the-door rule does not insulate a prosecutor from a finding of misconduct'" when responding to defense arguments). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Chandlergreen2 sentences2018Prosecutorial error during a trial is harmless if the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Chandler , 307 Kan. 657 , Syl. ¶¶ 6, 414 P.3d 713 (2018). 2018Prosecutorial error during a trial is harmless if the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt the error did not affect the trial's outcome in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonable possibility the error contributed to the verdict." State v. Chandler , 307 Kan. 657 , Syl. ¶¶ 6, 414 P.3d 713 (2018). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Spraguegreen2 sentences2024State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). "'[A] prosecutor's improper comment or argument can be prejudicial, even if the [error] was extemporaneous and made under the stress of rebutting arguments made by defense counsel.'" State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 934 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (disavowing language in previous cases that defense provocation can justify prosecutorial misconduct); State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 429 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (stating the "'open-the-door rule does not insulate a prosecutor from a finding of misconduct'" when responding to defense arguments). 2024State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). "'[A] prosecutor's improper comment or argument can be prejudicial, even if the [error] was extemporaneous and made under the stress of rebutting arguments made by defense counsel.'" State v. Roeder, 300 Kan. 901, 934 , 336 P.3d 831 (2014) (disavowing language in previous cases that defense provocation can justify prosecutorial misconduct); State v. Sprague, 303 Kan. 418, 429 , 362 P.3d 828 (2015) (stating the "'open-the-door rule does not insulate a prosecutor from a finding of misconduct'" when responding to defense arguments). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 504-505 , 325 P.3d 1095 (2014); State v. Taylor, 54 Kan. 2021See State v. Phillips, 299 Kan. 479, 504-505 , 325 P.3d 1095 (2014); State v. Taylor, 54 Kan. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hirshgreen2 sentences2021State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 342, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) ("We have repeatedly said that a prosecutor telling a jury in opening statement or closing argument that a witness told the truth is error."); Elnicki, 279 Kan. at 63-64 (holding prosecutor erred by repeatedly referring to defendant's story as a "'fabrication'" and a "'yarn'"). 2020See State v. Hirsh, 310 Kan. 321 , 342, 446 P.3d 472 (2019) ("The defense need not object in order to preserve [a prosecutorial error] issue for appeal."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bodinegreen2 sentences2026State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). 2021See State v. Bodine, 313 Kan. 378 , 406, 486 P.3d 551 (2021). 2 Prosecutorial error in closing argument occurs when the prosecutor's statements fall outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to conduct the State's case in an attempt to obtain a conviction in a manner that denies a defendant the constitutional right to a fair trial. | 1 | 16 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 864 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 2024See State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 831, 864 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). | 1 | 11 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2026We note that our Supreme Court has "express[ed] no opinion whether a contemporaneous objection or other posthearing remedial motion is required to appeal a prosecutorial error claim arising from a nonjury setting." State v. Wilson, 309 Kan. 67 , 73, 431 P.3d 841 (2018). 2024State v. Wilson, 309 Kan. 67 , 78, 431 P.3d 841 (2018) ("When a prosecutor argues facts outside the evidence, the first prong of the prosecutorial error test is met."). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Frairegreen2 sentences2025Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State can demonstrate "'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' [Citation omitted.]" Sherman, 305 Kan. at 109; see also State v. Fraire, 312 Kan. 786 , 791-92, 481 P.3d 129 (2021). 2024State v. Fraire, 312 Kan. 786 , 791-92, 481 P.3d 129 (2021). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 383 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015) (in determining whether a prosecutorial error prejudiced the jury, appellate courts must consider the extent of any ameliorating effect of a jury admonition attempting to remedy any such error). 2024See State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 383 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015) (in determining whether a prosecutorial error prejudiced the jury, appellate courts must consider the extent of any ameliorating effect of a jury admonition attempting to remedy any such error). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2020See Chandler, 307 Kan. at 678 - 79; Hall, 292 Kan. at 848 . 2018See **679 State v. Hall , 292 Kan. 841 , 848, 257 P.3d 272 2011) (when prosecutors argue facts not in evidence, the argument is outside the wide latitude given to them). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Peppergreen1 sentence2026Cf. State v. Pepper, 317 Kan. 770 , 779, 539 P.3d 203 (2023) ("even the gravest crime can be proved with circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences properly drawn from that evidence"); State v. Douglas, 313 Kan. 704 , 716, 490 P.3d 34 (2021) ("strong circumstantial evidence" may render a prosecutorial error harmless). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492 , 515, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024) ("Because there was no prosecutorial error, we need not reach the prejudice prong of the prosecutorial error analysis.") (citing State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 , 109, 378 P.3d 1060 [2016]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sturgisgreen1 sentence2024See Sturgis, 307 Kan. at 570 ; Blansett, 309 Kan. at 417 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Colegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Elnickigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Conwaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jeffersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Phillipsgreen | 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. Ward
green
2 sentences2026Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State demonstrates "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" Sherman, 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]). 2026Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State demonstrates "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" Sherman, 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]). | 4 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2026Bodine, 313 Kan. at 406 (citing State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 910, 468 P.3d 323 [2020]; State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 674 , 414 P.3d 713 [2018]). 2024State v. Thomas, 311 Kan. 905 , 911, 468 P.3d 323 (2020). | 3 | 2023–2026 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences2024Guiding a prosecutorial error analysis is the constitutional harmlessness inquiry announced by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 2024Guiding a prosecutorial error analysis is the constitutional harmlessness inquiry announced by the United States Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 3 | 2024–2026 |
State v. George
green
2 sentences2024In State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 701-02, 466 P.3d 469 (2020), the court noted a distinction between prosecutorial error and a prosecutor's efforts involving admission or exclusion of evidence, such as witness questioning on particular topics. 2024In State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 701-02, 466 P.3d 469 (2020), the court noted a distinction between prosecutorial error and a prosecutor's efforts involving admission or exclusion of evidence, such as witness questioning on particular topics. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Flack
green
2 sentences2024In other words, the question is whether there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [decision]." State v. Flack, 318 Kan. 79 , 111, 541 P.3d 717 (2024). 2024In other words, the question is whether there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the [decision]." State v. Flack, 318 Kan. 79 , 111, 541 P.3d 717 (2024). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Decker
green
2 sentences2024Under a previous version of the prosecutorial error analysis, the Decker court found it had "no problem with a prosecutor arguing that the State's evidence has overcome the presumption of innocence," but the State's evidence—"no matter how damning"—does not terminate the presumption altogether. 288 Kan. at 315 . 2024Under a previous version of the prosecutorial error analysis, the Decker court found it had "no problem with a prosecutor arguing that the State's evidence has overcome the presumption of innocence," but the State's evidence—"no matter how damning"—does not terminate the presumption altogether. 288 Kan. at 315 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. De La Torre
green
2 sentences2024Prosecutorial error in that context occurs when a prosecutor strays outside the wide latitude recognized in State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 609 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014). 2024Prosecutorial error in that context occurs when a prosecutor strays outside the wide latitude recognized in State v. De La Torre, 300 Kan. 591, 609 , 331 P.3d 815 (2014). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Pribble
green
2 sentences2017State v. Pribble, 304 Kan. 824, 831 , 375 P.3d 966 (2016). 2017State v. Pribble, 304 Kan. 824, 831 , 375 P.3d 966 (2016). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Tully
green
2 sentences2026"In making the assessment of whether the cumulative errors are harmless error, an appellate court examines the errors in the context of the record as a whole considering how the district court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy, or lack of efficacy, of any remedial efforts); the nature and number of errors committed and their interrelationship, if any; and the strength of the evidence." State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176, 205-06 , 262 P.3d 314 (2011). 2026"In making the assessment of whether the cumulative errors are harmless error, an appellate court examines the errors in the context of the record as a whole considering how the district court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy, or lack of efficacy, of any remedial efforts); the nature and number of errors committed and their interrelationship, if any; and the strength of the evidence." State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176, 205-06 , 262 P.3d 314 (2011). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Ward v. Kansas
green
1 sentence2026Prosecutorial error is harmless if the State demonstrates "'there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" Sherman, 305 Kan. at 109 (quoting State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 [2012]). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Douglas
green
1 sentence2026Cf. State v. Pepper, 317 Kan. 770 , 779, 539 P.3d 203 (2023) ("even the gravest crime can be proved with circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences properly drawn from that evidence"); State v. Douglas, 313 Kan. 704 , 716, 490 P.3d 34 (2021) ("strong circumstantial evidence" may render a prosecutorial error harmless). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2026Second, if the prosecutor's statements were in error, this court must "determine whether the error prejudiced the defendant's due process rights to a fair trial." 305 Kan. 88 , Syl. ¶ 7; State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , Syl. ¶ 2, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Ervin
green
1 sentence2025But, based on the Kansas Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Ervin, 320 Kan. 287 , 566 P.3d 481 (2025), we find the district court incorrectly calculated her jail time credit. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Magallanez
green
1 sentence2025Kemp claims that asking the prospective jurors whether they could set a personal standard for reasonable doubt is no different than the prosecutorial error in State v. Magallanez, 290 Kan. 906 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Blevins green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Blansett
green
1 sentence2024See Sturgis, 307 Kan. at 570 ; Blansett, 309 Kan. at 417 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Carr
green
1 sentence2024State v. Carr, 314 Kan 744, 764, 502 P.3d 511 (2022). 17 Appellate courts will review a prosecutorial error claim based on a prosecutor's comments made during voir dire, opening statement, or closing argument even without a timely objection, but the court may figure the presence or absence of an objection into its analysis of the alleged error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Killings green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Doolin green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| People v. Rundle green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Pabst green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Longoria green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. King green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Baker v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In the Matter of Tilford green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Holmes v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Stewart v.Ross green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Haygood green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Hernandez green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Smith v. Parman green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.