defendant argued instruction in Kansas

2015The defendant argued that an instruction stating “ ‘[i]f you do not agree that the defendant is guilty’ ” was erroneous because it required the jury to reject a conviction on the greater charge before considering lesser included offenses. 272 Kan. at 1154 .

2011Roberson, 272 Kan. at 1154 , 38 P.3d 715 .

2015The Simmons court agreed because tire prosecutor referred to facts that were never in evidence—a prohibition this court noted was applicable to all lawyers. 292 Kan. at 411 ; see also Rule 3.4(e) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (“A lawyer shall not. . . [e] in trial, allude to any matter . . . that will not be supported by admissible evidence.”) (2014 Kan.

2015The Simmons court agreed because the prosecutor referred to facts that were never in evidence—a prohibition this court noted was applicable to all lawyers. 292 Kan. at 411 ; see also Rule 3.4(e) of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct ("A lawyer shall not . . . 24 [e] in trial, allude to any matter . . . that will not be supported by admissible evidence.") (2014 Kan.

2012There, the defendant argued the instruction violated his constitutional right to due process because it “relieved the State from proving the intent-to-ldll element of second-degree murder.” 253 Kan. at 106 .

2012We disagreed, concluding the instruction “clearly states the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant” and “creat[es] a permissible inference of intent rather than an improper rebuttable presumption.” 253 Kan. at 107 ; see also Martinez, 288 Kan. 451 -52 (finding that instruction containing same language Robinson objects to here was not clearly erroneous when it specifically informed the jury it was never to shift the burden of proof to the defendant).

2006In State v. Meeks, 277 Kan. 609 , 88 P.3d 789 (2004), the defendant argued it was error to play the entire recording of a 911 call made by a witness during the shooting.

2006In State v. Meeks, 277 Kan. 609 , 88 P.3d 789 (2004), the defendant argued it was error to play the entire recording of a 911 call made by a witness during the shooting.

1992Those courts held that the existence or nonexistence of the factors goes only to the weight and credibility of the defendant’s evidence of duress or necessity.” Relying upon State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461 , 693 P.2d 475 (1985), the Court of Appeals discussed at length the difference between “immediate” and “imminent.” Hundley was a murder case involving the battered woman syndrome in which the defendant argued the defense of self-defense.

1992Those courts held that the existence or nonexistence of the factors goes only to the weight and credibility of the defendant’s evidence of duress or necessity.” Relying upon State v. Hundley, 236 Kan. 461 , 693 P.2d 475 (1985), the Court of Appeals discussed at length the difference between “immediate” and “imminent.” Hundley was a murder case involving the battered woman syndrome in which the defendant argued the defense of self-defense.