record shows error in Kansas

2021Kansas law provides that in reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, "courts are highly deferential in scrutinizing counsel's conduct and counsel's decisions on matters of reasonable strategy, and make every effort to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight." Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 826 , Syl. ¶ 3, 176 P.3d 954 (2008).

2021Kansas law provides that in reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, "courts are highly deferential in scrutinizing counsel's conduct and counsel's decisions on matters of reasonable strategy, and make every effort to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight." Moncla v. State, 285 Kan. 826 , Syl. ¶ 3, 176 P.3d 954 (2008).

2021But if the record shows that defense counsel strategically sought the instruction, then the doctrine precludes appellate review. 308 Kan. at 1217-18 (applying State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan.

2021But if the record shows that defense counsel strategically sought the instruction, then the doctrine precludes appellate review. 308 Kan. at 1217-18 (applying State v. Hargrove, 48 Kan.

2004Moreover, the record shows defense counsel told the court considering the second motion that “[t]he motion to suppress was previously litigated . . . and, again, I think Mr. Holmes in an abundance of caution filed a motion to preserve that issue for appeal.” “A litigant may not invite and lead a trial court into error and then *623 complain of the trial court’s action on appeal. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Boorigie, 273 Kan. 18, 27 , 41 P.3d 764 (2002).

2004Moreover, the record shows defense counsel told the court considering the second motion that “[t]he motion to suppress was previously litigated . . . and, again, I think Mr. Holmes in an abundance of caution filed a motion to preserve that issue for appeal.” “A litigant may not invite and lead a trial court into error and then *623 complain of the trial court’s action on appeal. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Boorigie, 273 Kan. 18, 27 , 41 P.3d 764 (2002).

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1945Va. 152 , 63 S. E. 873 , the court of appeals of West Virginia laid down the rule as follows: ‘. . . on appeal an infant will be given the benefit of every defense of which he could have availed himself, or which might have been interposed for him in the trial court; and that where the record shows error, as to a minor defendant, the judgment will be reversed, though there is no appeal on his part, it being the duty of the chancellor, as the guardian of infants, to protect their rights.’ This doctrine is also supported by the following authorities: Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. Foster, 84 Okl

1935(Gilliland v. Cement Co., 104 Kan. 771 , 180 Pac. 793 ; Shapland v. Ferguson Furniture Co., 139 Kan. 768 , 33 P. 2d 145 ; 1 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, 2d ed., 517; 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, 302-307.) The record shows no error redressible by appeal, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1935(Gilliland v. Cement Co., 104 Kan. 771 , 180 Pac. 793 ; Shapland v. Ferguson Furniture Co., 139 Kan. 768 , 33 P. 2d 145 ; 1 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, 2d ed., 517; 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, 302-307.) The record shows no error redressible by appeal, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1935(Gilliland v. Cement Co., 104 Kan. 771 , 180 Pac. 793 ; Shapland v. Ferguson Furniture Co., 139 Kan. 768 , 33 P. 2d 145 ; 1 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, 2d ed., 517; 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, 302-307.) The record shows no error redressible by appeal, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1935(Gilliland v. Cement Co., 104 Kan. 771 , 180 Pac. 793 ; Shapland v. Ferguson Furniture Co., 139 Kan. 768 , 33 P. 2d 145 ; 1 Schneider on Workmen’s Compensation, 2d ed., 517; 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, 302-307.) The record shows no error redressible by appeal, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

1915Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472 , 8 Pac. 780 ; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., 84 Kan. 287 , 114 Pac. 202 ; Barnett v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 719 , 139 Pac. 484 .) Having carefully examined and considered each point raised by the appeal the record shows no error of a materially prejudicial character and the judgment is affirmed.

1915Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472 , 8 Pac. 780 ; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., 84 Kan. 287 , 114 Pac. 202 ; Barnett v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 719 , 139 Pac. 484 .) Having carefully examined and considered each point raised by the appeal the record shows no error of a materially prejudicial character and the judgment is affirmed.

1915Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472 , 8 Pac. 780 ; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., 84 Kan. 287 , 114 Pac. 202 ; Barnett v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 719 , 139 Pac. 484 .) Having carefully examined and considered each point raised by the appeal the record shows no error of a materially prejudicial character and the judgment is affirmed.

1915Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472 , 8 Pac. 780 ; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., 84 Kan. 287 , 114 Pac. 202 ; Barnett v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 719 , 139 Pac. 484 .) Having carefully examined and considered each point raised by the appeal the record shows no error of a materially prejudicial character and the judgment is affirmed.

1915Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472 , 8 Pac. 780 ; Van Vrankin v. Railway Co., 84 Kan. 287 , 114 Pac. 202 ; Barnett v. Cement Co., 91 Kan. 719 , 139 Pac. 484 .) Having carefully examined and considered each point raised by the appeal the record shows no error of a materially prejudicial character and the judgment is affirmed.

1888(See Mann v. National Bank, 34 Kas. 746 .) And while this instruction was wrong, and perhaps misled the jury, yet the record shows that no exception was taken to the giving of it, without which no error can be considered.