defendant claimed error in Kansas

2020The court held it was improper to give the instruction because it effectively operated as a felony-murder instruction, but the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the underlying felony, i.e., aggravated battery, that the State's appellate argument relied on. 280 Kan. at 133 .

2011For example, in Hedrick v. State, 6 So.3d 688 (Fla.Dist.App.2009), the defendant claimed that defense counsel should have objected to the codefendants appearing at trial in shackles and prison clothing.

2001Because there is corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony, and because a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of Burton, we conclude that there was no real possibility the jury would have reached a different result had the instruction been given.” 258 Kan. at 606 .

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).

1995As early as 1910, this court stated, in a case where the defendant claimed error for failure to give an accomplice instruction even though none had been requested, that “[w]ithout such an instruction a jury of ordinary intelligence would naturally receive with caution the testimony of a confessed accomplice.” State v. Miller, 83 Kan. 410, 412 , 111 Pac. 437 (1910), revd on other grounds 84 Kan. 667 , 114 Pac. 855 (1911).

1995In State v. Parrish, 205 Kan. 178, 186 , 468 P.2d 143 (1970), in discussing the trial court’s failure to give a requested instruction on accomplice testimony, we said that “[t]he necessity for many of these tautological instructions is losing force when a case is being considered by our present enlightened jurors.” In a discussion of this issue in Moore , we quoted with approval the following language from an early decision of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Becker, 62 F.2d 1007, 1009 (2d Cir. 1933): “ ‘The warning [accomplice instruction] is never an absolute necessity.

1995In State v. Parrish, 205 Kan. 178, 186 , 468 P.2d 143 (1970), in discussing the trial court’s failure to give a requested instruction on accomplice testimony, we said that “[t]he necessity for many of these tautological instructions is losing force when a case is being considered by our present enlightened jurors.” In a discussion of this issue in Moore , we quoted with approval the following language from an early decision of Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Becker, 62 F.2d 1007, 1009 (2d Cir. 1933): “ ‘The warning [accomplice instruction] is never an absolute necessity.

1995The court found no error and in doing so stated: “The means by which the court complies with a jury request to have testimony read back is subject to its discretion.” 242 Kan. at 668 .

1995The court found no error and in doing *88 so stated: "The means by which the court complies with a jury request to have testimony read back is subject to its discretion." 242 Kan. at 668 .

1990A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals held “that testimony obtained from an accused under hypnosis that is offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted by the accused is analagous to testimony obtained by truth serum and lie detector tests and, in the absence of a binding agreement to admit the evidence, is not admissible.” 6 Kan.

1982In Chambliss v. State, 633 S.W.2d 678 (Tex. App. 1982), the defendant claimed error because the trial court refused to permit him to call a codefendant to testify, after the codefendant indicated that he would assert his privilege against self-incrimination.

1982In State v. Stewart, 219 Kan. 523 , 548 P.2d 787 (1976), the defendant claimed error in the trial court's rulings in a factual situation very similar to the instant case.

1982In State v. Stewart, 219 Kan. 523 , 548 P.2d 787 (1976), the defendant claimed error in the trial court's rulings in a factual situation very similar to the instant case.