plan exception (Kansas) · Go Syfert
← Kansas issues

plan exception in Kansas

6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2009 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Tiffanygreen
kan · 1999 · cited in 2 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 1999–2004
2 sentences

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

12
State v. Jonesgreen
kan · 2004 · cited in 1 Kansas opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See Jones, 277 Kan. at 424 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Dayhuff green
kanctapp · 2007
2 sentences

2009"Because there was insufficient evidence presented in this case to show a distinct mode of operation that was `strikingly similar' or a `signature act,' we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Dayhuff's prior crimes under the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455." Dayhuff, 37 Kan.App.2d at 793-94 , 158 P.3d 330 .

2009"Because there was insufficient evidence presented in this case to show a distinct mode of operation that was `strikingly similar' or a `signature act,' we conclude that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Dayhuff's prior crimes under the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455." Dayhuff, 37 Kan.App.2d at 793-94 , 158 P.3d 330 .

12009–2009
State v. Dotson green
kan · 1994
2 sentences

2007Previously, our Supreme Court has stated that “[a]ppellate review of the admission of prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion or whether the trial court admitted clearly irrelevant evidence. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Dotson, 256 Kan. 406, 412 , 886 P.2d 356 (1994).

2007Previously, our Supreme Court has stated that “[a]ppellate review of the admission of prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion or whether the trial court admitted clearly irrelevant evidence. [Citations omitted.]” State v. Dotson, 256 Kan. 406, 412 , 886 P.2d 356 (1994).

12007–2007
State v. Rucker green
kan · 1999
2 sentences

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

12004–2004
State v. Damewood green
kan · 1989
2 sentences

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

12004–2004
State v. Davidson green
kanctapp · 2003
2 sentences

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

2004App. 2d 372, 383-84 , 65 P.3d 1078 , rev. denied 276 Kan. 971 (2003), in which Judge (now Justice) Beier discussed the Damewood, 245 Kan. 676 ; State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816 , 987 P.2d 1080 (1999); and State v. Tiffany, 267 Kan. 495 , 986 P.2d 1064 (1999), cases regarding the plan exception under K.S.A. 60-455.

12004–2004
State v. Jones green
kan · 1990
1 sentence

2003This court ruled that the two offenses did not constitute a plan because no causal connection existed between them; therefore, the evidence was not admissible under the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455. 247 Kan. at 546 .

12003–2003
State v. Crossman green
kan · 1981
2 sentences

2003We need not address McHenry’s argument regarding the applicability of the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455 because we find the evidence was admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455 under this court’s holding in State v. Crossman, 229 Kan. 384 , 624 P.2d 461 (1981).

2003We need not address McHenry’s argument regarding the applicability of the plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455 because we find the evidence was admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455 under this court’s holding in State v. Crossman, 229 Kan. 384 , 624 P.2d 461 (1981).

12003–2003
State v. Marquez green
kan · 1977
2 sentences

1990The plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455 is “limited to evidence which shows some causal connection between two offenses, so that proof of the prior offense could be said to evidence a preexisting design, plan or scheme directed toward the doing of the offense charged.” State v. Marquez, 222 Kan. 441, 446-47 , 565 P.2d 245 (1977).

1990The plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455 is “limited to evidence which shows some causal connection between two offenses, so that proof of the prior offense could be said to evidence a preexisting design, plan or scheme directed toward the doing of the offense charged.” State v. Marquez, 222 Kan. 441, 446-47 , 565 P.2d 245 (1977).

11990–1990

Statutes the citing opinions construe

KS § K.S.A. § 60-455 (6) KS § K.S.A. § 21-3504 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-445 (4) KS § K.S.A. § 60-447 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

PA 63 (1971–2025) CA 16 (1967–2023) NY 16 (1929–2012) IN 8 (1982–2019) SD 6 (1992–2022) KS 6 (1990–2009) TX 6 (1973–2025) WA 5 (1990–2013) MI 4 (1992–2022) NJ 4 (1990–2002) MN 4 (1885–2026) GA 3 (1931–2018) AZ 3 (1989–2007) MT 3 (1895–1988) DE 3 (2019–2024) NH 3 (1981–2022) NV 2 (1980–2014) NE 2 (2017–2022) OH 2 (2000–2000) MA 2 (1978–1981) IL 2 (2014–2014) RI 2 (2005–2018) VA 2 (2002–2022) WI 2 (2019–2020) HI 2 (1961–2006) NC 2 (1986–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check