6 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2023 1 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. Higginsgreen2 sentences1995State v. Higgins, 243 Kan. 48, 51 , 755 P.2d 12 (1988). 1995State v. Higgins, 243 Kan. 48, 51 , 755 P.2d 12 (1988). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Maurice v. Gantgreen1 sentence2011On the other hand, this court has warned that this exception “ ‘cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for doing so.’ [Citations omitted.].” Murray, 285 Kan. at 522 ; see also United States v. Gant, 17 F.3d 935, 941-43 (7th Cir. 1994) (government crossed the fine fine between impeachment and inference of guilt, but error harmless); United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1130 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding government went too far and implied defendant’s silence was inconsistent with claim of innocence). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Charles Shuegreen1 sentence2011On the other hand, this court has warned that this exception “ ‘cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for doing so.’ [Citations omitted.].” Murray, 285 Kan. at 522 ; see also United States v. Gant, 17 F.3d 935, 941-43 (7th Cir. 1994) (government crossed the fine fine between impeachment and inference of guilt, but error harmless); United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1130 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding government went too far and implied defendant’s silence was inconsistent with claim of innocence). | 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. Gadelkarim
green
2 sentences2014The court noted the invited error rule, but performed a harmless error analysis after observing that “the invited error rule cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for so doing.” 256 Kan. at 685 . 2008As the court recognized in Gadelkarim , “the invited error rule cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for so doing. [Citation omitted.]” 256 Kan. at 685 . *523 In Falke , this court reviewed the murder and kidnapping convictions of the co-defendants Falke and White. | 3 | 2008–2023 |
State v. Murray
green
1 sentence2011On the other hand, this court has warned that this exception “ ‘cannot be used as a pretext for the violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights where there is no justification for doing so.’ [Citations omitted.].” Murray, 285 Kan. at 522 ; see also United States v. Gant, 17 F.3d 935, 941-43 (7th Cir. 1994) (government crossed the fine fine between impeachment and inference of guilt, but error harmless); United States v. Shue, 766 F.2d 1122, 1130 (7th Cir. 1985) (holding government went too far and implied defendant’s silence was inconsistent with claim of innocence). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.