causation requirement in Kansas

1994The Boody court stated: ‘Roberson is part of a growing number of courts to adopt this type of causation test and recognize a cause of action for a less than even chance of surmvaU (Emphasis added.) 706 F. Supp. at 1463 .” 15 Kan.

1991The Boody court stated: “Roberson is part of a growing number of courts to adopt this type of causation test and recognize a cause of action for a less than even chance of survival.” (Emphasis added.) 706 F. Supp. at 1463 .

2025Those cases begin with State v. Chastain, 265 Kan. 16 , 960 P.2d 756 (1998).

2025Those cases begin with State v. Chastain, 265 Kan. 16 , 960 P.2d 756 (1998).

2021I do not share the degree of confidence the majority has that the instruction error did not affect the outcome. 12 As the majority states, the trial court held and the State concedes that trial counsel's failure to request a causation instruction was deficient performance. "'Deficient performance' means 'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ." State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 70 , 339 P.3d 375 (2014).

2021"In State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 653 , 549 P.2d 886 (1976), we stated: "'While contributory negligence is no defense in a prosecution for vehicular homicide, it is a circumstance to be considered along with all other evidence to determine whether appellant's conduct was or was not the proximate cause of decedents' deaths.

2021"In State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 653 , 549 P.2d 886 (1976), we stated: "'While contributory negligence is no defense in a prosecution for vehicular homicide, it is a circumstance to be considered along with all other evidence to determine whether appellant's conduct was or was not the proximate cause of decedents' deaths.

2021I do not share the degree of confidence the majority has that the instruction error did not affect the outcome. 12 As the majority states, the trial court held and the State concedes that trial counsel's failure to request a causation instruction was deficient performance. "'Deficient performance' means 'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ." State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 70 , 339 P.3d 375 (2014).

2021I do not share the degree of confidence the majority has that the instruction error did not affect the outcome. 12 As the majority states, the trial court held and the State concedes that trial counsel's failure to request a causation instruction was deficient performance. "'Deficient performance' means 'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment.' Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ." State v. Coones, 301 Kan. 64, 70 , 339 P.3d 375 (2014).

2015Standard of Review The general framework for reviewing jury instructions applies: “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the de

2015Standard of Review The general framework for reviewing jury instructions applies: “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the de

2015Standard of Review The general framework for reviewing jury instructions applies: “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the de

2015Standard of Review The general framework for reviewing jury instructions applies: “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the de

2015Standard of Review The general framework for reviewing jury instructions applies: “For jury instruction issues, the progression of analysis and corresponding standards of review on appeal are: (1) First, the appellate court should consider the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; (2) next, the court should use an unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; (3) then, the court should determine whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the de

2011We recently affirmed this holding in State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (PIK Crim.3d 56.02 sufficiently incorporates the causation requirement).

2011See Jackson, 280 Kan. at 551 , 124 P.3d 460 (instruction would require jury to acquit if underlying felony had been completed or abandoned); State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (PIK Crim.3d 56.02 sufficiently incorporates the causation requirement).

2011We recently affirmed this holding in State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (PIK Crim.3d 56.02 sufficiently incorporates the causation requirement).

2011See Jackson, 280 Kan. at 551 , 124 P.3d 460 (instruction would require jury to acquit if underlying felony had been completed or abandoned); State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009) (PIK Crim.3d 56.02 sufficiently incorporates the causation requirement).

2008App. 2d at 234 . *1061 Without addressing Shutt and Hodgson , this court applied a causation test to determine the number of occurrences in Wilson v. Ramirez, 269 Kan. 371 , 2 P.3d 778 (2000).

2008App. 2d at 234 . *1061 Without addressing Shutt and Hodgson , this court applied a causation test to determine the number of occurrences in Wilson v. Ramirez, 269 Kan. 371 , 2 P.3d 778 (2000).

2008Co., 275 Kan. 698, 738-39 , 71 P.3d 1097 (2003), this court applied a causation test in concluding that 3,800 hearing loss claims constituted one occurrence for determining the amount of Santa Fe’s self-insured retention.

2008Co., 275 Kan. 698, 738-39 , 71 P.3d 1097 (2003), this court applied a causation test in concluding that 3,800 hearing loss claims constituted one occurrence for determining the amount of Santa Fe’s self-insured retention.

2001The Florida Court of Appeals concluded that the causation requirement of the one statute was a singular limitation on the broad discretion granted by the other: “[Wjhatever the breadth of judicial discretion in fashioning other conditions of probation, *721 when the condition of probation is that restitution be paid, the payment may be ordered only for a loss caused by the offense for which defendant is being sentenced.” 587 So. 2d at 599 .

1995The causation test was described as: “[T]he use of the vehicle need not be the proximate cause of the injury, but rather it is sufficient if the use of the vehicle is a cause in a more liberal sense.” 20 Kan.

1994The Boody court stated: ‘Roberson is part of a growing number of courts to adopt this type of causation test and recognize a cause of action for a less than even chance of surmvaU (Emphasis added.) 706 F. Supp. at 1463 .” 15 Kan.