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.
52 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 26 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. Aguirregreen2 sentences2026Standard of Review The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge requires this court to "'review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 , 209, 485 P.3d 576 (2021). 2026Standard of Review The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge requires this court to "'review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 , 209, 485 P.3d 576 (2021). | 5 | 11 |
State v. Hilyardgreen2 sentences2026"There must be evidence supporting each element of a crime to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard." State v. Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326 , 330-31, 515 P.3d 267 (2022). 2026"There must be evidence supporting each element of a crime to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard." State v. Hilyard, 316 Kan. 326 , 330-31, 515 P.3d 267 (2022). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Meggersongreen2 sentences2026The appellant bears a high burden to succeed on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, and "only when the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should we reverse a guilty verdict." Meggerson, 312 Kan. at 247. 2025The appellant bears a high burden to succeed on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, and "only when the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should we reverse a guilty verdict." State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan. 238 , 247, 474 P.3d 761 (2020). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Cardwellgreen2 sentences2026See [State v.] Cardwell, 90 Kan. [606,] 608[, 135 P. 597 (1913)] (applying a sufficiency of the evidence standard). 2024See [State v. Cardwell, 90 Kan. 606, 608 , 135 P. 597 (1913)] (applying a sufficiency of the evidence standard). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Fryegreen2 sentences2022See Daws, 303 Kan. at 789 ; see 8 also State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364, 374 , 277 P.3d 1091 (2012) (holding that the sufficiency of the evidence standard is the same for bench trials and jury trials). 2022See Daws, 303 Kan. at 789 ; see 8 also State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364, 374 , 277 P.3d 1091 (2012) (holding that the sufficiency of the evidence standard is the same for bench trials and jury trials). | 1 | 4 |
Burks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16-18 , 98 S. Ct. 2141 , 57 L. 2012Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16-18 , 98 S. Ct. 2141 , 57 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2026And the district court found compelling that, on direct appeal, the Supreme Court stated: "The trial record provides sufficient evidence that Robinson committed felony murder—that is, he participated in the crime of an aggravated burglary during which Roberts was killed." Robinson, 308 Kan. at 406. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2026In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review "the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Ballard, 320 Kan. 269 , 285, 566 P.3d 1092 (2025). 2026In a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we review "the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Ballard, 320 Kan. 269 , 285, 566 P.3d 1092 (2025). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentesgreen1 sentence2025See Gutierrez-Fuentes, 315 Kan. at 348. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blansettgreen1 sentence2024Instead, the circumstances here are more "akin to a court's failure to submit an element of the charged crime to the jury," which we discussed in Bentley. 317 Kan. at 233-34. | 1 | 1 |
Beauclair v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Cf. State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189 , 209, 485 P.3d 576 (2021) ("'When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, we review the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."); Beauclair, 308 Kan. at 297 (defining "actual innocence"—as provided in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-1507[f][2][A]—as "more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted the prisoner in light of new evidence"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dawsgreen1 sentence2022See Daws, 303 Kan. at 789 ; see 8 also State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364, 374 , 277 P.3d 1091 (2012) (holding that the sufficiency of the evidence standard is the same for bench trials and jury trials). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Plummergreen2 sentences2020See State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161-62 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). 2020See State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 161-62 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Farmergreen2 sentences2020Towner responds by framing this as solely a sufficiency of the evidence claim which he can raise for the first time on appeal, citing State v. Farmer, 285 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 1, 175 P.3d 221 (2008) ("There is no requirement that a criminal defendant challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court in order to preserve the question for appeal."). 2020Towner responds by framing this as solely a sufficiency of the evidence claim which he can raise for the first time on appeal, citing State v. Farmer, 285 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 1, 175 P.3d 221 (2008) ("There is no requirement that a criminal defendant challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court in order to preserve the question for appeal."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2019See 3 State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 473-74 , 362 P.3d 1098 (2015). 2019See 3 State v. Collins, 303 Kan. 472, 473-74 , 362 P.3d 1098 (2015). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ballgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kesselringgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Doylegreen | 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. Banks
green
2 sentences2026And appellate courts have said, "a conviction of even the gravest offense can be based entirely on circumstantial evidence." State v. Banks, 306 Kan. 854 , 858, 397 P.3d 1195 (2017). 2025As we have often recognized, "a conviction of even the gravest offense can be based entirely on circumstantial evidence." State v. Banks, 306 Kan. 854 , 858, 397 P.3d 1195 (2017). 4 Speeding is a strict liability crime. | 3 | 2024–2026 |
State v. Kettler
green
2 sentences2022State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 471 , 325 P.3d 1075 (2014). 2022State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 471 , 325 P.3d 1075 (2014). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Chandler
green
2 sentences2020The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is "'whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 668 , 414 P.3d 713 (2018). 2020The standard of review for a sufficiency of the evidence claim is "'whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.'" State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 668 , 414 P.3d 713 (2018). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lloyd
green
2 sentences2020Lloyd, 299 Kan. at 632 . 2018Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make witness credibility determinations." State v. Lloyd , 299 Kan. 620 , 632, 325 P.3d 1122 (2014). | 2 | 2018–2020 |
State v. Northcutt
green
2 sentences2014See K.S.A. 21-3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). 2014See K.S.A. 21-3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Webber v. Kansas
green
2 sentences2014See K.S.A. 21-3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). 2014See K.S.A. 21- 3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Webber
green
2 sentences2014See K.S.A. 21-3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). 2014See K.S.A. 21-3302(a); State v. Northcutt, 290 Kan. 224, 231 , 224 P.3d 564 (2010); State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 288 , 918 P.2d 609 (1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090 (1997). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2026Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on three issues: (1) whether appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim; (2) whether trial counsel performed deficiently when counsel did not investigate the victim's character; and (3) whether trial counsel failed to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. 9 "Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are analyzed under the two- prong test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Kansas Supreme Cou 2026Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on three issues: (1) whether appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim; (2) whether trial counsel performed deficiently when counsel did not investigate the victim's character; and (3) whether trial counsel failed to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. 9 "Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are analyzed under the two- prong test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Kansas Supreme Cou | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Chamberlain v. State
green
2 sentences2026Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on three issues: (1) whether appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim; (2) whether trial counsel performed deficiently when counsel did not investigate the victim's character; and (3) whether trial counsel failed to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. 9 "Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are analyzed under the two- prong test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Kansas Supreme Cou 2026Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on three issues: (1) whether appellate counsel was deficient for failing to raise a sufficiency of the evidence claim; (2) whether trial counsel performed deficiently when counsel did not investigate the victim's character; and (3) whether trial counsel failed to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence. 9 "Claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel are analyzed under the two- prong test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. Ed 2d 674 (1984), and adopted by the Kansas Supreme Cou | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Scheuerman
green
2 sentences2025State v. Scheuerman, 314 Kan. 583 , 587, 520 P.3d 502 (2022). 3 The appellant bears a high burden to succeed on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, and "only when the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should we reverse a guilty verdict." State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan. 238 , 247, 474 P.3d 761 (2020). 2025State v. Scheuerman, 314 Kan. 583 , 587, 520 P.3d 502 (2022). 3 The appellant bears a high burden to succeed on a sufficiency of the evidence claim, and "only when the testimony is so incredible that no reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt should we reverse a guilty verdict." State v. Meggerson, 312 Kan. 238 , 247, 474 P.3d 761 (2020). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
McDermed v. State
green
1 sentence2020App. 2d 806, 810-11 , 146 P.3d 222 (2006), our court found that habeas counsel did not advocate against his client when he conceded an issue about a particular defense and stated that the sufficiency of the evidence claim had already been raised in the defendant's direct appeal. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2019Legal causation limits a defendant's liability to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her conduct." State v. Wilson, 308 Kan. 516 , 522, 421 P.3d 742 (2018). 12 In State v. Gilbert, No. 118,491, 2019 WL 1303075 , at *1 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied December 6, 2019, another panel of this court addressed a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for a conviction of aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer based on knowingly causing bodily harm to the officer with a motor vehicle. 2019Legal causation limits a defendant's liability to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his or her conduct." State v. Wilson, 308 Kan. 516 , 522, 421 P.3d 742 (2018). 12 In State v. Gilbert, No. 118,491, 2019 WL 1303075 , at *1 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied December 6, 2019, another panel of this court addressed a sufficiency of the evidence challenge for a conviction of aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer based on knowingly causing bodily harm to the officer with a motor vehicle. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Dunn
green
2 sentences2018Standard of Review "In order to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard, there must be evidence supporting each element of a crime." State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 509 , 528, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). 2018Standard of Review "In order to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard, there must be evidence supporting each element of a crime." State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 509 , 528, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Williams
red
2 sentences2018Standard of Review "In order to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard, there must be evidence supporting each element of a crime." State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 509 , 528, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). 2018Standard of Review "In order to meet the sufficiency of the evidence standard, there must be evidence supporting each element of a crime." State v. Williams , 299 Kan. 509 , 528, 324 P.3d 1078 (2014), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn , 304 Kan. 773 , 375 P.3d 332 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Gray
neutral
1 sentence2017The Court of Appeals ruled in Gray's favor on Issue 2— the sufficiency of the evidence challenge—and "reverse[d] Gray's convictions of two counts of felony interference with law enforcement and remand[ed] with directions for the district court to resentence Gray for the misdemeanor [interference with law enforcement] convictions." Gray, 51 Kan. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Carmell v. Texas green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Lockhart v. Nelson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. McCaslin red | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Dumars green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Gutierrez green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Hayden green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Racey green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Peoples green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. Sanders green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.