contours rule in Kansas

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2006However, to state that in all circumstances the issue of admissibility of gang evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard is to paint with too broad a brush. "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146, 156 , 120 P.3d 760 (2005).

2006However, to state that in all circumstances the issue of admissibility of gang evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard is to paint with too broad a brush. "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146, 156 , 120 P.3d 760 (2005).

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing Boldridge v. State , 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 1, 215 P.3d 585 [2009] ). ' "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting Gunby , 282 Kan. at 47 , 144 P.3d 647 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing Boldridge v. State , 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 1, 215 P.3d 585 [2009] ). ' "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting Gunby , 282 Kan. at 47 , 144 P.3d 647 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2008This court has recently modified the standard of review on such questions to reflect the actual analysis it applies: “ ‘ “[Ejvidentiaiy rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” ’ ” State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 473 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005]).

2008This court has recently modified the standard of review on such questions to reflect the actual analysis it applies: “ ‘ “[Ejvidentiaiy rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” ’ ” State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 473 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005]).

2006“When the admission or exclusion of evidence is raised at trial, an appellate court first considers whether the evidence is relevant. [Citation omitted.] Relevant evidence is ‘evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.’ [Citation omitted.] ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 881 , 127 P.3d 249 (2006).

2006“When the admission or exclusion of evidence is raised at trial, an appellate court first considers whether the evidence is relevant. [Citation omitted.] Relevant evidence is ‘evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.’ [Citation omitted.] ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 881 , 127 P.3d 249 (2006).

2023Whether a piece of evidence is material presents a question of law, which this court considers under a de novo standard of review; whether evidence is probative is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 314 Kan. at 533. "'Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'" Roeder, 300 Kan. at 927 .

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2019See, e.g., Colten v. Kentucky , 407 U.S. 104 , 119-20, 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972) (presumption not applicable in two-tiered trial system where defendant appeals for de novo trial; different courts in first, second trial); Chaffin v. Stynchcombe , 412 U.S. 17 , 18, 26-27, 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973) (presumption does not apply when different jury imposes increased sentence on retrial; jury has "no motivation to engage in self-vindication"); Blackledge v. Perry , 417 U.S. 21 , 27, 94 S.Ct. 2098 , 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (presumption applied; court concerned with punishment pos

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing Boldridge v. State , 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 1, 215 P.3d 585 [2009] ). ' "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting Gunby , 282 Kan. at 47 , 144 P.3d 647 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing Boldridge v. State , 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 1, 215 P.3d 585 [2009] ). ' "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting Gunby , 282 Kan. at 47 , 144 P.3d 647 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 (citing Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 10, 215 P.3d 585 [2009]). '"[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question."' Mooney, 283 Kan. at 620 (quoting Gunby, 282 Kan. at 47 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v. City of Manhattan, 294 Kan. 60, 69-70 , 274 P.3d

2018The next step is to determine which additional rules of evidence or other legal principles govern admissibility. 'On appeal, this conclusion is reviewed de novo.' 290 Kan. at 817 , 235 P.3d 436 (citing Boldridge v. State , 289 Kan. 618 , Syl. ¶ 1, 215 P.3d 585 [2009] ). ' "[E]videntiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." ' Mooney , 283 Kan. at 620 , 153 P.3d 1252 (quoting Gunby , 282 Kan. at 47 , 144 P.3d 647 )." Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v

2012See State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803 , Syl. ¶ 4, 235 P.3d 436 (2010); Riojas, 288 Kan. at 383 .

2012Materiality concerns whether die fact to be proved ‘ “has a legitimate and effective bearing on die decision of the case.’ ” [Citations omitted.] Our standard of review for materiality is de novo. [Citation omitted.] On proba-tiveness, the court examines whether the offered evidence has ‘ “any tendency in reason to prove” ’ a disputed material fact. [Citation omitted.] This court reviews probativity for abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.] ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the d

2012Materiality concerns whether die fact to be proved ‘ “has a legitimate and effective bearing on die decision of the case.’ ” [Citations omitted.] Our standard of review for materiality is de novo. [Citation omitted.] On proba-tiveness, the court examines whether the offered evidence has ‘ “any tendency in reason to prove” ’ a disputed material fact. [Citation omitted.] This court reviews probativity for abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.] ‘Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the d

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2011State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009); Richmond, 289 Kan. at 437 , 212 P.3d 165 . "`Once relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.'[Citation omitted.]" Walters, 284 Kan. at 8 , 159 P.3d 174 .

2008This court has recently modified the standard of review on such questions to reflect the actual analysis it applies: “ ‘ “[Ejvidentiaiy rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” ’ ” State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 473 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005]).

2008This court has recently modified the standard of review on such questions to reflect the actual analysis it applies: “ ‘ “[Ejvidentiaiy rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” ’ ” State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464, 473 , 153 P.3d 532 (2007) (quoting State v. Oliver, 280 Kan. 681, 693 , 124 P.3d 493 [2005]).

2007Baker, 281 Kan. at 1008 .

2007Standard of Review Recently, we explained that “[o]nce relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155 , Syl. ¶ 1, 159 P.3d 974 (2007).

2007Standard of Review Recently, we explained that “[o]nce relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge’s discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question.” In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. 155 , Syl. ¶ 1, 159 P.3d 974 (2007).

2007Standard of Review Recently, we explained that "[o]nce relevance is established, evidentiary rules governing admission and exclusion may be applied either as a matter of law or in the exercise of the district judge's discretion, depending on the contours of the rule in question." In re J.D.C., 284 Kan. ___ , Syl. ¶ 1, 159 P.3d 974 (2007).