Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Kansas opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Herbelgreen2 sentences2016We upheld the “any/any” reasonable doubt instruction in State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction used in Herbels trial was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). 2016We upheld the “any/any” reasonable doubt instruction in State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction used in Herbels trial was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Waggonergreen2 sentences2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). 2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smysergreen2 sentences2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). 2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. WOMELSDORFgreen1 sentence2013See Wom-elsdorf, 47 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. State
green
2 sentences2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). 2014Miller v. State, 298 Kan. 921, 939 , 318 P.3d 155 (2014); see PIK Crim. 3d 52.02 (1995 Supp.); see, e.g., State v. Smyser, 297 Kan. 199, 206 , 299 P.3d 309 (2013) (“We hold the [older PIK] reasonable doubt jury instruction was legally appropriate and not error.”); State v. Waggoner, 297 Kan. 94, 99 , 298 P.3d 333 (2013) (“[W]e conclude the [older] reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous.”); State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1124 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (“While the older PIK instruction . . . was not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.