9 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2026 2 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. Schoonovergreen2 sentences2024Our analysis under the second part of the Schoonover test requires us to consider whether both the statutory offense of possession of methamphetamine and the statutory offense of no drug-tax stamp each require proof of an element that the other does not. 281 Kan. at 498 . 2024Our analysis under the second part of the Schoonover test requires us to consider whether both the statutory offense of possession of methamphetamine and the statutory offense of no drug-tax stamp each require proof of an element that the other does not. 281 Kan. at 498 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences2010See also State v. Hawkins, 40 Kan.App.2d 10, 17-18 , 188 P.3d 965 (2008), rev. denied 287 Kan. ___ (2009) (defendant's convictions of aggravated assault and aggravated assault of law enforcement officer were not multiplicitous despite fact that both crimes involved same victim; defendant shot at victim prior to victim identifying himself as police officer; defendant later acted like he was going to shoot at victim while victim gave chase and identified himself as police officer). 2010See also State v. Hawkins, 40 Kan.App.2d 10, 17-18 , 188 P.3d 965 (2008), rev. denied 287 Kan. ___ (2009) (defendant's convictions of aggravated assault and aggravated assault of law enforcement officer were not multiplicitous despite fact that both crimes involved same victim; defendant shot at victim prior to victim identifying himself as police officer; defendant later acted like he was going to shoot at victim while victim gave chase and identified himself as police officer). | 1 | 1 |
State v. SORIANO-GARCIAgreen2 sentences2009E.g., State v. Schofield, 2009 WL 2242424 , at *2 (Kan.App.2009) (unpublished opinion); State v. Soriano-Garcia, 2008 WL 142104, at *2 (Kan.App.) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 286 Kan. 1185 (2008). 2009E.g., State v. Schofield, 2009 WL 2242424 , at *2 (Kan.App.2009) (unpublished opinion); State v. Soriano-Garcia, 2008 WL 142104, at *2 (Kan.App.) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 286 Kan. 1185 (2008). | 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. Weber
green
2 sentences2026As we have noted, the Schoonover test at its heart requires courts to ascertain "whether the convictions arose from the same or unitary conduct." Weber, 297 Kan. at 6 809. 2026As we have noted, the Schoonover test at its heart requires courts to ascertain "whether the convictions arose from the same or unitary conduct." Weber, 297 Kan. at 6 809. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Sprung
green
2 sentences2026This analysis considers, among other things, whether "(1) the acts occurred at or near the same time, (2) the acts occurred at the same location, (3) a causal relationship existed between the acts, in particular whether an intervening event separated the acts, and (4) a fresh impulse motivated some of the conduct." Sprung, 294 Kan. at 307 . 2026This analysis considers, among other things, whether "(1) the acts occurred at or near the same time, (2) the acts occurred at the same location, (3) a causal relationship existed between the acts, in particular whether an intervening event separated the acts, and (4) a fresh impulse motivated some of the conduct." Sprung, 294 Kan. at 307 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. King
green
2 sentences2019King , 297 Kan. at 969 -71 , 305 P.3d 641 . 2019King , 297 Kan. at 969 -71 , 305 P.3d 641 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Kesselring
green
2 sentences2014In State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671 , 112 P.3d 175 (2005), the Kansas Supreme Court addressed whether a unanimity jury instruction was required for an aggravated kidnapping charge. 2014In State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671 , 112 P.3d 175 (2005), the Kansas Supreme Court addressed whether a unanimity jury instruction was required for an aggravated kidnapping charge. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Sellers
green
1 sentence2013However, we ultimately determined that Sellers’ conduct was not unitary when he touched the victim, left the room for 30 to 90 seconds to check on a barking dog, returned to the room, and touched the victim a second time. 292 Kan. at 359-60 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2007Rejecting his argument, we concluded that although the convictions arose from the same conduct, the offenses did not meet the second component of the Schoonover inquiry because, whether judged under the same-elements test or by statutory interpretation, the convictions were not multiplicitous. 283 Kan. at 610-13 . 2007Rejecting his argument, we concluded that although the convictions arose from the same conduct, the offenses did not meet the second component of the Schoonover inquiry because, whether judged under the same-elements test or by statutory interpretation, the convictions were not multiplicitous. 283 Kan. at 610-13 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.