verdict absent error (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

verdict absent error in Kansas

8 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Dobbsgreen
kan · 2013 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2014–2026
2 sentences

2026Clear error is a high standard that permits reversal only when the appellate court is "firmly convinced the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the error." 297 Kan. at 1237 .

2014See State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 1237 , 308 P.3d 1258 (2013) (discussing clear error review and noting reversal is required only if court is “firmly convinced the juiy would have reached a different verdict absent the error”); Williams, 295 Kan. at 510 ; see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3).

12
State v. Hogegreen
kan · 2003 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008State v. Hoge, 276 Kan. 801, 817 , 80 P.3d 52 *310 (2003).

2008State v. Hoge, 276 Kan. 801, 817 , 80 P.3d 52 *310 (2003).

11
State v. Deaversgreen
kan · 1992 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149, 164-65 , 843 P.2d 695 (1992).

1994State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149, 164-65 , 843 P.2d 695 (1992).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Ellmaker green
kan · 2009
2 sentences

2010Ellmaker, 289 Kan. at 1139 , 221 P.3d 1105 .

2010Ellmaker; 289 Kan. at 1139 .

22010–2010
State v. Williams green
kan · 2012
1 sentence

2014See State v. Dobbs, 297 Kan. 1225, 1237 , 308 P.3d 1258 (2013) (discussing clear error review and noting reversal is required only if court is “firmly convinced the juiy would have reached a different verdict absent the error”); Williams, 295 Kan. at 510 ; see also K.S.A. 22-3414(3).

12014–2014
State v. Carter green
kan · 2007
2 sentences

2011State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 324 , 160 P.3d 457 (2007).

2011State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 324 , 160 P.3d 457 (2007).

12011–2011
State v. Salts green
kan · 2009
2 sentences

2010The State points out that while "like all cases, it must be decided sometime" is an inaccurate statement of law, State v. Scott-Herring did not require reversal and under the standard of review proper and fair instructions were required rather than "technically perfect instructions." The State further points to the fact there was no objection in the State v. Salts case, which required a clearly erroneous standard of review, and the court concluded there was no reversible error because there was no real possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the error. 288 Kan. at 26

2010The State points out that while "like all cases, it must be decided sometime" is an inaccurate statement of law, State v. Scott-Herring did not require reversal and under the standard of review proper and fair instructions were required rather than "technically perfect instructions." The State further points to the fact there was no objection in the State v. Salts case, which required a clearly erroneous standard of review, and the court concluded there was no reversible error because there was no real possibility the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the error. 288 Kan. at 26

12010–2010
State v. Page green
kanctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2010The State distinguishes the recent case of State v. Page, 41 Kan.App.2d 584 , 203 P.3d 1277 (2009), where giving the deadlocked jury instruction was objected to and deemed to be reversible error because the jury had informed the court it was deadlocked on count II but continued deliberations the following day and eventually found Page guilty.

2010The State distinguishes the recent case of State v. Page, 41 Kan.App.2d 584 , 203 P.3d 1277 (2009), where giving the deadlocked jury instruction was objected to and deemed to be reversible error because the jury had informed the court it was deadlocked on count II but continued deliberations the following day and eventually found Page guilty.

12010–2010

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 22-3601 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 22-3717 (3) KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 129 (1994–2026) VA 18 (2017–2026) WA 14 (2007–2025) KS 8 (1994–2026) GA 4 (2000–2007) NC 4 (2005–2025) FL 2 (2012–2016) DC 2 (2013–2014)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check