53 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 4 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Doyle v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2015A Doyle violation occurs when the government attempts to impeach a defendant’s version of events offered at trial on the basis that the defendant remained silent after being advised of his or her Miranda rights and, thus, did not offer the information at an earlier point in the criminal investigation. 426 U.S. at 617-19 ; see State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 121-23 , 238 P.3d 251 (2010). 2015A Doyle violation occurs when the government attempts to impeach a defendant’s version of events offered at trial on the basis that the defendant remained silent after being advised of his or her Miranda rights and, thus, did not offer the information at an earlier point in the criminal investigation. 426 U.S. at 617-19 ; see State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 121-23 , 238 P.3d 251 (2010). | 5 | 13 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences2024King, 288 Kan. at 349 (holding Doyle violation during prosecutor's questioning of a witness cannot be raised on direct appeal absent a contemporaneous objection); State v. Applebee, No. 120,985, 2020 WL 1223408 , at *4 (Kan. 2020The conclusion of the Court of Appeals that 'the gravamen of [the criminal defendant's] complaint is that a 13 Doyle violation occurred during questioning of [the criminal defendant] that caused the erroneous admission of evidence' is a particularly apt description of what occurred in this case. [Citation omitted.]" 288 Kan. at 346-47 . | 4 | 8 |
State v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2020A line of questioning constitutes a Doyle violation if it "center[s] on what was not said." State v. Hernandez, 284 Kan. 74, 91 , 159 P.3d 950 (2007). 2020A line of questioning constitutes a Doyle violation if it "center[s] on what was not said." State v. Hernandez, 284 Kan. 74, 91 , 159 P.3d 950 (2007). | 3 | 7 |
State v. Fishergreen2 sentences2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n 2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n | 3 | 7 |
State v. Fishergreen2 sentences2020If the court determines there was a Doyle error, reversal of a conviction is not automatic. 304 Kan. at 249 . 2020If the court determines there was a Doyle error, reversal of a conviction is not automatic. 304 Kan. at 249 . | 3 | 6 |
State v. Wilkersongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147, 157 , 91 P.3d 1181 (2004) (finding no Doyle violation where prosecutor examined a defense alibi witness who previously refused to speak to law enforcement and who had not been in custody or read Miranda warnings). 6 If the Doyle challenge concerns an evidentiary issue raised at trial—e.g., a prosecutor's line of questioning on direct or cross-examination—a defendant cannot argue the issue on appeal if defendant did not timely and specifically object to it during the trial. 2020See State v. Wilkerson, 278 Kan. 147, 157 , 91 P.3d 1181 (2004) (finding no Doyle violation where prosecutor examined a defense alibi witness who previously refused to speak to law enforcement and who had not been in custody or read Miranda warnings). 6 If the Doyle challenge concerns an evidentiary issue raised at trial—e.g., a prosecutor's line of questioning on direct or cross-examination—a defendant cannot argue the issue on appeal if defendant did not timely and specifically object to it during the trial. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Brinkleygreen2 sentences2012State v. Brinkley, 256 Kan. 808, 820 , 888 P.2d 819 (1995).’ ” State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 707 , 175 P.3d 861 (2008) (quoting State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 195 , 955 P.2d 1276 [1998]). 2006As this court has previously stated: “[A] Doyle violation occurs when the State attempts to impeach a defendant’s credibility at trial by arguing or by introducing evidence that the defendant did not avail himself or herself of the first opportunity to clear his or her name when confronted by police officers but instead invoiced his or her constitutional right to remain silent.” Brinkley, 256 Kan. at 820. | 2 | 8 |
State v. Kemblegreen2 sentences2015A Doyle violation occurs when the government attempts to impeach a defendant’s version of events offered at trial on the basis that the defendant remained silent after being advised of his or her Miranda rights and, thus, did not offer the information at an earlier point in the criminal investigation. 426 U.S. at 617-19 ; see State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 121-23 , 238 P.3d 251 (2010). 2015A Doyle violation occurs when the government attempts to impeach a defendant’s version of events offered at trial on the basis that the defendant remained silent after being advised of his or her Miranda rights and, thus, did not offer the information at an earlier point in the criminal investigation. 426 U.S. at 617-19 ; see State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 121-23 , 238 P.3d 251 (2010). | 2 | 3 |
State v. DuMarsgreen2 sentences2012App. 2d 735, 748 , 108 P.3d 448 , rev. denied 280 Kan. 986 (2005), as support for his characterization of Block’s statement as a Doyle violation. 2012App. 2d 735, 748 , 108 P.3d 448 , rev. denied 280 Kan. 986 (2005), as support for his characterization of Block’s statement as a Doyle violation. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n 2008We acknowledge that the State’s brief cites State v Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307, 311 , 144 P.3d 178 (2006), for the proposition that an appellate court does not review an alleged Doyle violation when defendant fails to raise a timely objectioii with the trial court. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Tullygreen2 sentences2016See State v. Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. 11 , 321 P.3d 1 (2014) (district judge gave no admonition or curative instruction; verdict dependent on whether jury believed victim or defendant); see also Tully, 293 Kan. at 194 (district judge took no remedial action; verdict hinged on defendant’s credibility); State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. at 124-25 (outcome dependent on evaluation of defendant’s credibility; prosecutor’s improper reference to defendant’s silence addressed theory of defense). 2014See State v. Hernandez, 284 Kan. 74, 91-92 , 159 P.3d 950 (concluding Doyle violation not established when prosecutor’s question was unclear regarding whether referring to pre- or post-Miranda silence), cert. *512 denied 552 U.S. 1025 (2007); Tully, 293 Kan. at 188 (no Doyle violation when reference is to pr e-Miranda silence). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2014The Alleged Doyle Violation Marshall next argues that the State committed a Doyle violation by allegedly arguing guilt based on his postarrest silence. *846 “A Doyle violation occurs when the State attempts to impeach a defendant’s credibility at trial by arguing or by introducing evidence that the defendant did not avail himself or herself of the first opportunity to clear his or her name when confronted by police officers but instead invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent.” State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 195 , 955 P.2d 1276 (1998). 2014The Alleged Doyle Violation Marshall next argues that the State committed a Doyle violation by allegedly arguing guilt based on his postarrest silence. *846 “A Doyle violation occurs when the State attempts to impeach a defendant’s credibility at trial by arguing or by introducing evidence that the defendant did not avail himself or herself of the first opportunity to clear his or her name when confronted by police officers but instead invoked his or her constitutional right to remain silent.” State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 195 , 955 P.2d 1276 (1998). | 1 | 14 |
State v. Santos-Vegagreen2 sentences2024Concluding that cumulative error deprived the defendant of a fair trial, the court highlighted the aggregated errors: a Doyle violation—"complete with the detective's histrionic emphasis—and the lack of unanimity between the evidence and the charges being deliberated, which remained unexplained despite the jury's obvious confusion." (Emphasis added.) Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 22 . 2024Concluding that cumulative error deprived the defendant of a fair trial, the court highlighted the aggregated errors: a Doyle violation—"complete with the detective's histrionic emphasis—and the lack of unanimity between the evidence and the charges being deliberated, which remained unexplained despite the jury's obvious confusion." (Emphasis added.) Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 22 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2020Fisher, 304 Kan. at 248 ; see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012). 2020Fisher, 304 Kan. at 248 ; see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Draytongreen2 sentences2016See Hernandez, 284 Kan. at 82 (no Doyle violation when prosecutor refers to defendant’s pre-Miranda silence); see also State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 707-08 , 175 P.3d 861 (2008) (no Doyle violation when prosecutor impeaches defendants trial testimony through use of a prior inconsistent statement made after Miranda warnings given). 2016See Hernandez, 284 Kan. at 82 (no Doyle violation when prosecutor refers to defendant’s pre-Miranda silence); see also State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 707-08 , 175 P.3d 861 (2008) (no Doyle violation when prosecutor impeaches defendants trial testimony through use of a prior inconsistent statement made after Miranda warnings given). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n 2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n | 1 | 2 |
Ward v. Kansasgreen2 sentences2020Fisher, 304 Kan. at 248 ; see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012). 2020Fisher, 304 Kan. at 248 ; see State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 569 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
| Strickland v. Leegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fletcher v. Weirgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lainhart v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Patrick Cummiskey, United States of America v. Michael Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Karla Fostergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McGinnisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Falkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mims
green
2 sentences1997This court adopted the Doyle rule, in State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 730 , 556 P.2d 387 (1976). 1997This court adopted the Doyle rule, in State v. Mims, 220 Kan. 726, 730 , 556 P.2d 387 (1976). | 5 | 1990–2001 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2012Even if a defendant has “already spoken at length with the police,” a Doyle violation can occur. “[A] defendant ‘should be afforded the same right [under Doyle] after some discussion with the police when he remains silent as to matters later asserted at trial.’ ” State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 521 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (quoting State v. Clark, 223 Kan. 83, 89 , 574 P.2d 174 [1977]). 2012Even if a defendant has “already spoken at length with the police,” a Doyle violation can occur. “[A] defendant ‘should be afforded the same right [under Doyle] after some discussion with the police when he remains silent as to matters later asserted at trial.’ ” State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 521 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (quoting State v. Clark, 223 Kan. 83, 89 , 574 P.2d 174 [1977]). | 4 | 2008–2016 |
State v. Cosby
green
2 sentences2009In explaining that a defendant may not be impeached with post- Miranda silence, our Supreme Court stated: "Generally, it is constitutionally impermissible for the State to elicit evidence at trial of an accused's post- Miranda silence. [Citations omitted.] A Doyle violation occurs when the State attempts to impeach a defendant's credibility at trial by arguing or introducing evidence that the defendant did not avail himself or herself of the first opportunity to clear his or her name, instead invoking the constitutional right to remain silent. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 2009In explaining that a defendant may not be impeached with post- Miranda silence, our Supreme Court stated: "Generally, it is constitutionally impermissible for the State to elicit evidence at trial of an accused's post- Miranda silence. [Citations omitted.] A Doyle violation occurs when the State attempts to impeach a defendant's credibility at trial by arguing or introducing evidence that the defendant did not avail himself or herself of the first opportunity to clear his or her name, instead invoking the constitutional right to remain silent. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, | 3 | 2008–2024 |
State v. Gadelkarim
green
2 sentences2013The decision also cites State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671, 685 , 887 P.2d 88 (1994), in which tire court declined to apply the invited error rule to a defendant’s claimed Doyle violation. 2013The decision also cites State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671, 685 , 887 P.2d 88 (1994), in which tire court declined to apply the invited error rule to a defendant’s claimed Doyle violation. | 3 | 2001–2013 |
State v. Haddock
green
2 sentences2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n 2009See Sanchez, 282 Kan. 307 , Syl. ¶ 1 (“An appellate court does not review an alleged violation under Doyle . . . when the defendant fails to raise a timely objection with the trial court.”); State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 973 , 897 P.2d 152 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by State v. James, 276 Kan. 737 , 79 P.3d 169 (2003) (“A timely and specific objection to the challenged question or comment is necessary to preserve a Doyle issue for appeal.”); State v. Fisher, 222 Kan. 76, 84 , 563 P.2d 1012 (1977) (“Because the appellant failed to make timely, specific objections to the testimony he n | 3 | 2000–2009 |
State v. Murray
green
2 sentences2012Even if a defendant has “already spoken at length with the police,” a Doyle violation can occur. “[A] defendant ‘should be afforded the same right [under Doyle] after some discussion with the police when he remains silent as to matters later asserted at trial.’ ” State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 521 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (quoting State v. Clark, 223 Kan. 83, 89 , 574 P.2d 174 [1977]). 2012Even if a defendant has “already spoken at length with the police,” a Doyle violation can occur. “[A] defendant ‘should be afforded the same right [under Doyle] after some discussion with the police when he remains silent as to matters later asserted at trial.’ ” State v. Murray, 285 Kan. 503, 521 , 174 P.3d 407 (2008) (quoting State v. Clark, 223 Kan. 83, 89 , 574 P.2d 174 [1977]). | 2 | 2010–2012 |
State v. Hazley
green
2 sentences2009App. 2d 664 , 19 P.3d 800 (2001) (denying review of an alleged Doyle violation that occurred during the prosecutor’s direct examination of a witness because no objection was raised to the testimony, but finding prosecutor’s comments on this testimony during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct). 2009App. 2d 664 , 19 P.3d 800 (2001) (denying review of an alleged Doyle violation that occurred during the prosecutor’s direct examination of a witness because no objection was raised to the testimony, but finding prosecutor’s comments on this testimony during closing argument constituted prosecutorial misconduct). | 2 | 2008–2009 |
State v. Searles
green
2 sentences2001“A Doyle violation occurs when a defendant’s post-arrest silence is used to impeach the defendant when an exculpatory explanation is subsequently offered at trial.” State v. Searles, 246 Kan. 567, 572-73 , 793 P.2d 724 (1990). 2001“A Doyle violation occurs when a defendant’s post-arrest silence is used to impeach the defendant when an exculpatory explanation is subsequently offered at trial.” State v. Searles, 246 Kan. 567, 572-73 , 793 P.2d 724 (1990). | 2 | 1997–2001 |
State v. George
green
2 sentences2024In State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 701-04, 466 P.3d 469 (2020), our Supreme Court reviewed its holding in King to address the conflict between the rule allowing appellate review of unpreserved claims of prosecutorial error and the rule precluding review of the type of Doyle violation that Fallis raises here. 2024In State v. George, 311 Kan. 693 , 701-04, 466 P.3d 469 (2020), our Supreme Court reviewed its holding in King to address the conflict between the rule allowing appellate review of unpreserved claims of prosecutorial error and the rule precluding review of the type of Doyle violation that Fallis raises here. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Sherman
green
2 sentences2024Fisher, 304 Kan. at 249 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014). 2024Fisher, 304 Kan. at 249 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2024Fisher, 304 Kan. at 249 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014). 2024Fisher, 304 Kan. at 249 ; State v. Reed, 300 Kan. 494, 510-11 , 332 P.3d 172 (2014). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Butler
green
2 sentences2020But we "do not isolate the challenged comments; [we] consider them in the context they were made." State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 832, 865 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). 2020But we "do not isolate the challenged comments; [we] consider them in the context they were made." State v. Butler, 307 Kan. 832, 865 , 416 P.3d 116 (2018). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2020State v. Marshall, 50 Kan. 2020State v. Marshall, 50 Kan. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Brown v. United States green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Jenkins v. Anderson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Pruitt green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Parks green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Hunt green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Carter green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Mattox v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Manning green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Brecht v. Abrahamson green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Fulton green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Massey green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In re Leuellyn green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Sever v. IBM Corp. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Higgins green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Green green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Sagebiel green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Neal v. State green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| United States v. Alton R. Fairchild green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| United States v. Eugene Griffin, A/K/A 'Gene,' green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.
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.