Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2026 6 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. Andersongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Anderson, 318 Kan. 425 , 437, 543 P.3d 1120 (2024) (recognizing and applying Sherman test). 2026See State v. Anderson, 318 Kan. 425 , 437, 543 P.3d 1120 (2024) (recognizing and applying Sherman test). | 5 | 5 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Brown v. State, 58 Kan. App. 2d 808 , 832, 475 P.3d 689 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Mitchell , 297 Kan. 118 , Syl. ¶ 3, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in law applies to cases pending on direct review and not yet final on date of appellate court decision). 2.3 Discussion Thurber argues three categories of prosecutorial error: (1) providing the jury with an improper "imaginary script" during opening statement and closing argument; (2) improperly telling the jury the prosecutor was personally responsible and the Attorney General had determined death was the appropriate sentence; and (3) incorrectly stating the law when he claimed premeditation "[c]an be instantaneous." 2018See State v. Mitchell , 297 Kan. 118 , Syl. ¶ 3, 298 P.3d 349 (2013) (change in law applies to cases pending on direct review and not yet final on date of appellate court decision). 2.3 Discussion Thurber argues three categories of prosecutorial error: (1) providing the jury with an improper "imaginary script" during opening statement and closing argument; (2) improperly telling the jury the prosecutor was personally responsible and the Attorney General had determined death was the appropriate sentence; and (3) incorrectly stating the law when he claimed premeditation "[c]an be instantaneous." | 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. Ward
green
2 sentences2024Prejudice should be measured against the standard in Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, for a constitutional wrong. 2024Prejudice should be measured against the standard in Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, for a constitutional wrong. | 3 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2020Butler, 307 Kan. at 863 . 24 In State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 314-24, 382 P.3d 373 (2016), the prosecutorial misconduct claim arose in a jury trial held pre-Sherman. 2020Butler, 307 Kan. at 863 . 24 In State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 314-24, 382 P.3d 373 (2016), the prosecutorial misconduct claim arose in a jury trial held pre-Sherman. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kleypas v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2020Butler, 307 Kan. at 863 . 24 In State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 314-24, 382 P.3d 373 (2016), the prosecutorial misconduct claim arose in a jury trial held pre-Sherman. 2020Butler, 307 Kan. at 863 . 24 In State v. Kleypas, 305 Kan. 224 , 314-24, 382 P.3d 373 (2016), the prosecutorial misconduct claim arose in a jury trial held pre-Sherman. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Chapman v. California
yellow
2 sentences2018If it finds error, the appellate court determines if that error prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial." "In evaluating the prejudice step for reversible prosecutorial error, an appellate court applies the traditional constitutional harmlessness inquiry from Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 2018If it finds error, the appellate court determines if that error prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial." "In evaluating the prejudice step for reversible prosecutorial error, an appellate court applies the traditional constitutional harmlessness inquiry from Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2018Phillips , 299 Kan. at 502 -08 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.