8 Kansas opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2021 1 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. Beamangreen2 sentences2021See State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 858 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012) ("The test for determining the waiver's validity is whether it was voluntarily made by a defendant who knew and understood what he or she was doing."). 2021See State v. Beaman, 295 Kan. 853, 858 , 286 P.3d 876 (2012) ("The test for determining the waiver's validity is whether it was voluntarily made by a defendant who knew and understood what he or she was doing."). | 1 | 4 |
Leiker v. Employment Security Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence1994See Leiker v. Employment Security Bd. of Review , 8 Kan. | 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. Lewis
green
2 sentences2020"The test for determining a waiver's validity is whether it was voluntarily made by a defendant who knew and understood what he or she was doing." State v. Lewis, 301 Kan. 349, 376 , 344 P.3d 928 (2015). 2020"The test for determining a waiver's validity is whether it was voluntarily made by a defendant who knew and understood what he or she was doing." Lewis, 301 Kan. at 376 . 8 Here, it was Harris' own attorney—not the district court—who broached the subject of a jury trial at arraignment. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Bingham v. United States
green
1 sentence2015This court’s most recent iteration of the test for determining whether error violating a defendant’s constitutional rights is harmless requires that the State carry the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of . . . did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2015This court’s most recent iteration of the test for determining whether error violating a defendant’s constitutional rights is harmless requires that the State carry the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of . . . did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). 2015This court’s most recent iteration of the test for determining whether error violating a defendant’s constitutional rights is harmless requires that the State carry the burden of proving “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of . . . did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., proves there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.