8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2024 3 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. Crosbygreen2 sentences2024See State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630 , 639, 479 P.3d 167 (2021). 2024State v. Crosby, 312 Kan. 630 , 639, 479 P.3d 167 (2021). 9 Objections to jury instructions require a multistep analysis on appeal. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2017In declining to apply the doctrine, we noted that "'[a] party must do more than simply fail to object to a district court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.'" 304 Kan. at 444 (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384 , Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015]). 2017See State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016) (invited error would not bar defendant from raising lesser included offense issue on appeal when counsel did not request instructions pretrial and confirmed that was still the case at the instructions conference); State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 398 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015) 7 (declining to apply invited error because defendant did not object to, or request, the challenged instruction); State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 984 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (declining to apply invited error when counsel merely acquiesced in a ruling that the facts did not | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dern
green
2 sentences2017In declining to apply the doctrine, we noted that "'[a] party must do more than simply fail to object to a district court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.'" 304 Kan. at 444 (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384 , Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015]). 2017In declining to apply the doctrine, we noted that "'[a] party must do more than simply fail to object to a district court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.'" 304 Kan. at 444 (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384 , Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015]). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Royal
green
2 sentences2020He cites State v. Royal, 234 Kan. 218 , 670 P.2d 1337 (1983), to support his claim. 2020He cites State v. Royal, 234 Kan. 218 , 670 P.2d 1337 (1983), to support his claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Soto
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016) (invited error would not bar defendant from raising lesser included offense issue on appeal when counsel did not request instructions pretrial and confirmed that was still the case at the instructions conference); State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 398 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015) 7 (declining to apply invited error because defendant did not object to, or request, the challenged instruction); State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 984 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (declining to apply invited error when counsel merely acquiesced in a ruling that the facts did not 2017See State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016) (invited error would not bar defendant from raising lesser included offense issue on appeal when counsel did not request instructions pretrial and confirmed that was still the case at the instructions conference); State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 398 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015) 7 (declining to apply invited error because defendant did not object to, or request, the challenged instruction); State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 984 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (declining to apply invited error when counsel merely acquiesced in a ruling that the facts did not | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016) (invited error would not bar defendant from raising lesser included offense issue on appeal when counsel did not request instructions pretrial and confirmed that was still the case at the instructions conference); State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 398 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015) 7 (declining to apply invited error because defendant did not object to, or request, the challenged instruction); State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 984 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (declining to apply invited error when counsel merely acquiesced in a ruling that the facts did not 2017See State v. Walker, 304 Kan. 441, 445 , 372 P.3d 1147 (2016) (invited error would not bar defendant from raising lesser included offense issue on appeal when counsel did not request instructions pretrial and confirmed that was still the case at the instructions conference); State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 398 , 362 P.3d 566 (2015) 7 (declining to apply invited error because defendant did not object to, or request, the challenged instruction); State v. Soto, 301 Kan. 969, 984 , 349 P.3d 1256 (2015) (declining to apply invited error when counsel merely acquiesced in a ruling that the facts did not | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Engelhardt
green
2 sentences2017The State responded with its own case—State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005)—which it believed cautioned courts against modifying the aiding and abetting PIK instructions. 2017The State responded with its own case—State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005)—which it believed cautioned courts against modifying the aiding and abetting PIK instructions. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Overstreet
green
2 sentences2017Jury instruction number 10, which was based on PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 relating to aiding and abetting, said: "A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids, abets, advises, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant's participation, if any, in the actual commission of the crime." 9 In lieu of this instruction, defense counsel submitted a proposed jury instruction that simply stated, "For Joseph Mattox to be convicted o 2017Jury instruction number 10, which was based on PIK Crim. 3d 54.05 relating to aiding and abetting, said: "A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids, abets, advises, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant's participation, if any, in the actual commission of the crime." 9 In lieu of this instruction, defense counsel submitted a proposed jury instruction that simply stated, "For Joseph Mattox to be convicted o | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bingham v. United States
green
2 sentences2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In the Matter of Brunton
green
1 sentence2014State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Appleby
green
1 sentence2014State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059 , 221 P.3d 525 (2009). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 2014I believe it would give them the impression that they don’t have the freedom to disagree and state their points.” After taking the matter under advisement, the court elected to give the proposed jury instruction. *491 When analyzing a properly preserved jury instruction issue on appeal, this court follows a progressive step analysis: “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 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.