belief error in Kansas

2006In State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 96 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004), the court recognized that an error of constitutional magnitude may be harmless: “ ‘An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that the error is harmless.

2006In State v. Hebert, 277 Kan. 61, 96 , 82 P.3d 470 (2004), the court recognized that an error of constitutional magnitude may be harmless: “ ‘An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that the error is harmless.

2005To ‘not enforc[e] the offending clause’ and to make ‘full disclosure of the terms and circumstances of the agreement,’ a trial court is obliged by Fisher to ensure that the witness, any counsel she may have, the parties to the underlying prosecution, and, in appropriate cases, the jury in the underlying prosecution, are aware that any consistency provision in a plea agreement entered by an accomplice witness cannot be enforced. [176 Ariz.] at 76, 859 P.2d at 186 .

2005To `not enforc[e] the offending clause' and to make `full disclosure of the terms and circumstances of the agreement,' a trial court is obliged by Fisher to ensure that the witness, any counsel she may have, the parties to the underlying prosecution, and, in appropriate cases, the jury in the underlying prosecution, are aware that any consistency provision in a plea agreement entered by an accomplice witness cannot be enforced. [176 Ariz.] at 76, 859 P.2d at 186 .

2000Garza, 26 Kan.

1999An exercise of discretion which results in an error of constitutional magnitude may not be held to be harmless unless an appellate court is willing to declare a belief that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 252 Kan. at 732 .

1988However, in State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987), we pointed out that the statutory limitation on the use of the compulsion defense is restricted to crimes of intentional killing.

1988However, in State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987), we pointed out that the statutory limitation on the use of the compulsion defense is restricted to crimes of intentional killing.

1926The court said: “We think it may be laid down as a rule, that whenever one person obtains the possession of the personal property of another without the consent of the owner, and then without any right which the law will recognize, asserts a claim to the property inconsistent with the owner’s right of property and right of possession, the possession of such person will immediately become illegal and wrongful, . . . although the possessor thereof may ever so honestly entertain the belief that his claim to the property is both legal and just.” (p. 52.) In Brown v. Campbell, 44 Kan. 237 , 24 Pac.