reversibility inquiry in Kansas

2026"Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects the appellate court's reversibility inquiry at the third step." State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492 , 515, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

2026"Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects the appellate court's reversibility inquiry at the third step." State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492 , 515, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

2015The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.’ Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5.” Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1121 . 2.

2015The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.' Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5." Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1121 . 2.

2024United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 , 113 S. Ct. 1770 , 123 L.

2024United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734-35 , 113 S. Ct. 1770 , 123 L.

2019State v. Pfannenstiel, 302 Kan. 747, 752 , 357 P.3d 877 (2015).

2016Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects the reversibility inquiry at the third step. 302 Kan. at 752 ; see also K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3414(3) ("No party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction . . . unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict . . . unless the instruction or the failure to give an instruction is clearly erroneous.").

2017The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal." Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5.' Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1121." Robinson, 303 Kan. at 282 .

2016The party claiming a clearly erroneous instruction maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal." Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5.' Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1121." Robinson, 303 Kan. at 282 .

2015“Given that the reversibility test for cumulative error utilizes a totality of the circumstances approach, an appellate court must necessarily ‘review the entire record and engage in an unlimited review.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 1039, 1050 , 329 P.3d 420 (2014).

2015“Given that the reversibility test for cumulative error utilizes a totality of the circumstances approach, an appellate court must necessarily ‘review the entire record and engage in an unlimited review.’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 1039, 1050 , 329 P.3d 420 (2014).

2026The State counters that this court should instead follow the reversibility inquiry conducted by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 162-66 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2026The State counters that this court should instead follow the reversibility inquiry conducted by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 162-66 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2026At the second step, appellate courts consider whether the instruction was legally and factually appropriate, using an unlimited standard of review of the record." State v. Hollins, 320 Kan. 240 , 242, 564 P.3d 778 (2025). 11 "Whether a party has preserved a jury instruction issue affects the appellate court's reversibility inquiry at the third step." State v. Peters, 319 Kan. 492 , 515, 555 P.3d 1134 (2024).

2026When, as here, a party asserts an instruction 16 error for the first time on appeal, "the failure to give a legally and factually appropriate instruction is reversible only if the failure was clearly erroneous." State v. Willis, 319 Kan. 663 , 671, 557 P.3d 424 (2024); see K.S.A. 22-3414(3).

2026The State counters that this court should instead follow the reversibility inquiry conducted by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 162-66 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2026The State counters that this court should instead follow the reversibility inquiry conducted by the Kansas Supreme Court in State v. Carr, 300 Kan. 1, 162-66 , 331 P.3d 544 (2014), rev'd and remanded on other grounds Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 , 136 S. Ct. 633 , 193 L.

2025State v. Gentry, 310 Kan. 715 , 720, 449 P.3d 429 (2019).

2024State v. Holley, 313 Kan. 249 , 253- 54, 485 P.3d 614 (2021).

2024When evaluating prejudice stemming from prosecutorial error, we look to all "'indicators of prejudice, as argued by the parties, and then determine whether the State has met its burden—i.e., shown that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.'" State v. Brown, 316 Kan. 154 , 169, 513 P.3d 1207 (2022).

2022Both parties recognize that our Supreme Court held in State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , Syl. ¶ 3, 144 P.3d 647 (2006), that when a trial court admits evidence that the 20 defendant committed other crimes, "to avoid error, the district judge must give a limiting instruction informing the jury of the specific purpose for admission." Because the reversibility inquiry is determinative in this case, we will assume— without deciding—that Munoz has shown error in the failure to give a limiting instruction.

2022Both parties recognize that our Supreme Court held in State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 , Syl. ¶ 3, 144 P.3d 647 (2006), that when a trial court admits evidence that the 20 defendant committed other crimes, "to avoid error, the district judge must give a limiting instruction informing the jury of the specific purpose for admission." Because the reversibility inquiry is determinative in this case, we will assume— without deciding—that Munoz has shown error in the failure to give a limiting instruction.

2022See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3414(3) (permitting review of unpreserved jury instruction challenges for clear error); State v. Chavez, 310 Kan. 421 , Syl. ¶ 4, 447 P.3d 364 (2019) (unrequested jury instruction reviewed for clear error).

2020Next, if we find error, we conduct a 'reversibility inquiry.'" State v. Williams, 308 Kan. 1439 , 1451, 430 P.3d 448 (2018) (quoting State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5, 286 P.3d 195 [2012]). "'The standard for the reversibility inquiry depends on whether the instruction was properly requested in district court. . . .

2019State v. Pfannenstiel, 302 Kan. 747, 752 , 357 P.3d 877 (2015).

2019We have recently clarified that the party bearing the burden of proving prejudice—or lack thereof—depends on whether the failure below is classified as "judicial misconduct" or "judicial comment error." State v. Boothby, 310 Kan. 619 , 626, 448 P.3d 416 (2019).

2018The defendant maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal. 295 Kan. at 516 [ 286 P.3d 195 ]." State v. Burnett , 300 Kan. 419 , 445, 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

2018The defendant maintains the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal. 295 Kan. at 516 [ 286 P.3d 195 ]." State v. Burnett , 300 Kan. 419 , 445, 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

2016To accomplish those goals, the Tosh court first recited the three factors to be considered in evaluating the second prong—the reversibility inquiry—of the two-step analysis: "'The appellate court considers three factors to determine whether a new trial should be granted because of prosecutorial misconduct: (1) whether the misconduct is so gross and flagrant as to deny the accused a fair trial; (2) whether the remarks show ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have little

2016After reaching that conclusion, the federal court of appeals advanced to the reversibility inquiry and, in doing so, applied the Boyde standard rather than the traditional harmless error test applied when a federal court conducts habeas review of a state court judgment—i.e., the standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S. Ct. 1710 , 123 L.

2016After reaching that conclusion, the federal court of appeals advanced to the reversibility inquiry and, in doing so, applied the Boyde standard rather than the traditional harmless error test applied when a federal court conducts habeas review of a state court judgment—i.e., the standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S. Ct. 1710 , 123 L.

2016If a party requested a jury instruction not given by the district court or objected before the district court to an instruction that was given, an appellate court tests reversibility under the harmless error paradigm set out in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2016See Bolze-Sann, 302 Kan. at 209-10 ; State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 562-66 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2016If a party requested a jury instruction not given by the district court or objected before the district court to an instruction that was given, an appellate court tests reversibility under the harmless error paradigm set out in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2016If a party requested a jury instruction not given by the district court or objected before the district court to an instruction that was given, an appellate court tests reversibility under the harmless error paradigm set out in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2015The burden to show clear error under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3414(3) remains on the defendant. 296 Kan. at 203-04 .

2014No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’ ” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 (2013).

2014No prejudicial error may be found under this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.’ ” State v. Edwards, 291 Kan. 532, 553 , 243 P.3d 683 (2010) (quoting State v. Ellmaker, 289 Kan. 1132 , Syl. ¶ 12, 221 P.3d 1105 [2009]).” State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1073-74 , 307 P.3d 199 (2013).