party requesting instruction in Kansas

2009When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed ... in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” 268 Kan. at 168 (quoting State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350 , Syl. ¶ 4, 827 P.2d 733 [1992]).

2009When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed ... in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” 268 Kan. at 168 (quoting State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350 , Syl. ¶ 4, 827 P.2d 733 [1992]).

2005When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must *835 be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004).

2005When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must *835 be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Williams, 277 Kan. 338, 356 , 85 P.3d 697 (2004).

2010To that end, Cummings argues the district court erred in denying her request to provide the jury with an instruction relating to general intent. "`When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 131-32 , 130 P.3d 24 (2006).

2010To that end, Cummings argues the district court erred in denying her request to provide the jury with an instruction relating to general intent. "`When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.' [Citation omitted.]" State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 131-32 , 130 P.3d 24 (2006).

2007State v. Lutter, 27 Kan.

2007State v. Lutter, 27 Kan.

2006When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601, 615 , 35 P.3d 868 , cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002).

2005When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601, 615 , 35 P.3d 868 (2001), cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002).

2006When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601, 615 , 35 P.3d 868 , cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002).

2006When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Gholston, 272 Kan. 601, 615 , 35 P.3d 868 , cert. denied 536 U.S. 963 (2002).

1999When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166 , Syl. ¶ 1, 960 P.2d 1271 (1998).

1999When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.” State v. Sims, 265 Kan. 166 , Syl. ¶ 1, 960 P.2d 1271 (1998).

2012In making this determination an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction.” State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). “ “When tire trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009). “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to instructions on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense if there is evidence to support the theory.

2012State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009).

2012In making this determination an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction.” State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). “ “When tire trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009). “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to instructions on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense if there is evidence to support the theory.

2012State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009).

2010State v. Moore, 287 Kan. 121, 130 , 194 P.3d 18 (2008).

2010State v. Moore, 287 Kan. 121, 130 , 194 P.3d 18 (2008).

2010Williams, 277 Kan. at 356 .’ ” State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 331 , 197 P.3d 409 (2008) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 706 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1183 [2006]).

2010Williams, 277 Kan. at 356 .’ ” State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 331 , 197 P.3d 409 (2008) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 706 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1183 [2006]).

2003When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” He also acknowledges this standard cannot be reviewed in isolation, citing State v. Mims, 264 Kan. 506, 514 , 956 P.2d 1337 (1998), where we stated: *502 “When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction.

2003When considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” He also acknowledges this standard cannot be reviewed in isolation, citing State v. Mims, 264 Kan. 506, 514 , 956 P.2d 1337 (1998), where we stated: *502 “When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction.

2002State v. Saleem, 267 Kan. 100, 113 , 977 P.2d 921 (1999).

2002State v. Saleem, 267 Kan. 100, 113 , 977 P.2d 921 (1999).

1994State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776 , Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 811 P.2d 1153 (1991).

1994State v. Dixon, 248 Kan. 776 , Syl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 811 P.2d 1153 (1991).

2021Foster, 296 Kan. at 301 .

2020State v. Barlett, 308 Kan. 78 , 84, 418 P.3d 1253 (2018).

2012However, there must be evidence which, viewed in tire light most favorable to the defendant, is sufficient to justify a rational factfinder finding in accordance with the defendant’s theory.” ’ ” State v. Hendrix, 289 Kan. 859, 861 , 218 P.3d 40 (2009).

2012However, there must be evidence which, viewed in tire light most favorable to the defendant, is sufficient to justify a rational factfinder finding in accordance with the defendant’s theory.” ’ ” State v. Hendrix, 289 Kan. 859, 861 , 218 P.3d 40 (2009).

2012In making this determination an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction.” State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). “ “When tire trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009). “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to instructions on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense if there is evidence to support the theory.

2012In making this determination an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction.” State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). “ “When tire trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction.’ ” State v. Ransom, 288 Kan. 697, 713 , 207 P.3d 208 (2009). “ ‘ “A defendant is entitled to instructions on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense if there is evidence to support the theory.

2011The district judge denied Waldrup’s request, reasoning that Roubison’s testimony was largely corroborated. “ ‘In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] “ ‘ “If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not r

2011The district judge denied Waldrup’s request, reasoning that Roubison’s testimony was largely corroborated. “ ‘In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] “ ‘ “If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not r

2010Analysis Aiding and Abetting Appellant raises the familiar argument that the district court erred by dechning to add the following language to the aiding and abetting instruction at trial: “Mere association with the principals who actually commit the crime or mere presence in the vicinity of the crime are themselves insufficient to establish guilt as an aider *552 and abettor.” State v. Green, 237 Kan. 146 , Syl. ¶ 4, 697 P.2d 1305 (1985).

2010Analysis Aiding and Abetting Appellant raises the familiar argument that the district court erred by dechning to add the following language to the aiding and abetting instruction at trial: “Mere association with the principals who actually commit the crime or mere presence in the vicinity of the crime are themselves insufficient to establish guilt as an aider *552 and abettor.” State v. Green, 237 Kan. 146 , Syl. ¶ 4, 697 P.2d 1305 (1985).

2010Williams, 277 Kan. at 356 .’ ” State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 331 , 197 P.3d 409 (2008) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 706 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1183 [2006]).

2010Williams, 277 Kan. at 356 .’ ” State v. Anderson, 287 Kan. 325, 331 , 197 P.3d 409 (2008) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 706 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005], cert. denied 547 U.S. 1183 [2006]).

2010Standard of Review “In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] ‘ “ ‘If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error ev

2010Standard of Review “In general, when considering the refusal of the trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.] In cases where a defendant objects to instructions, this court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and not isolate any one instruction. [Citation omitted.] ‘ “ ‘If the instructions properly and fairly state law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error ev

2009In State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 733 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006), we set forth our review standard: “ “When the trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. . . . [A]n appellate court cannot consider the requested instruction in isolation.

2009In State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728, 733 , 148 P.3d 525 (2006), we set forth our review standard: “ “When the trial court refuses to give a requested instruction, an appellate court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. . . . [A]n appellate court cannot consider the requested instruction in isolation.

2009A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case . . . . [Nevertheless,] [i]f the instructions as a whole properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case, and the jury could not reasonably be mislead by them, the instructions are not reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous. [Citation omitted.]” Jackson, 280 Kan. at 549-50 .

2009A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case even though the evidence thereon is slight and supported only by the defendant's own testimony.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 106-07 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006).

2009A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his or her theory of the case even though the evidence thereon is slight and supported only by the defendant's own testimony.' [Citations omitted.]" State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 106-07 , 145 P.3d 18 (2006).