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.
48 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 9 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. Wrightred2 sentences2026After considering the State's petition in 2024, this court summarily vacated the panel's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Reynolds, 319 Kan. 1 , 2, 552 P.3d 1 (2024), which overruled the super-sufficiency test for alternative means jury instructions from State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 206 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010). 4 Following this court's directive, the same panel reconsidered Boese's case and determined that Reynolds didn't apply and its holding was "irrelevant." The panel distinguished the cases because Reynolds involved a defendant's claim that a jury in 2026After considering the State's petition in 2024, this court summarily vacated the panel's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Reynolds, 319 Kan. 1 , 2, 552 P.3d 1 (2024), which overruled the super-sufficiency test for alternative means jury instructions from State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 206 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010). 4 Following this court's directive, the same panel reconsidered Boese's case and determined that Reynolds didn't apply and its holding was "irrelevant." The panel distinguished the cases because Reynolds involved a defendant's claim that a jury in | 7 | 12 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2019See State v. Wright , 290 Kan. 194 , 206, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) ; State v. Timley , 255 Kan. 286 , 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994) ; see also Khan v. State , 204 P.3d 1036 , 1042 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (when a defendant is charged with a crime under more than one theory , the jurors need not unanimously agree on the theory that serves as the basis for the defendant's conviction, but the jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the wrongful deed). "[A] statute-and any [jury] instruction that incorporates it-must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime , not m 2019See State v. Wright , 290 Kan. 194 , 206, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) ; State v. Timley , 255 Kan. 286 , 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994) ; see also Khan v. State , 204 P.3d 1036 , 1042 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (when a defendant is charged with a crime under more than one theory , the jurors need not unanimously agree on the theory that serves as the basis for the defendant's conviction, but the jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the wrongful deed). "[A] statute-and any [jury] instruction that incorporates it-must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime , not m | 5 | 7 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen2 sentences2026After considering the State's petition in 2024, this court summarily vacated the panel's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Reynolds, 319 Kan. 1 , 2, 552 P.3d 1 (2024), which overruled the super-sufficiency test for alternative means jury instructions from State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 206 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010). 4 Following this court's directive, the same panel reconsidered Boese's case and determined that Reynolds didn't apply and its holding was "irrelevant." The panel distinguished the cases because Reynolds involved a defendant's claim that a jury in 2026After considering the State's petition in 2024, this court summarily vacated the panel's decision and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of State v. Reynolds, 319 Kan. 1 , 2, 552 P.3d 1 (2024), which overruled the super-sufficiency test for alternative means jury instructions from State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 206 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010). 4 Following this court's directive, the same panel reconsidered Boese's case and determined that Reynolds didn't apply and its holding was "irrelevant." The panel distinguished the cases because Reynolds involved a defendant's claim that a jury in | 5 | 6 |
State v. Petersongreen2 sentences2013See Wright, 290 Kan. at 201 (‘Timley required sufficiency of evidence to support each alternative means upon which a jury is instructed, in order to protect a criminal defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict.’ [Emphasis added.]); see also Peterson, 168 Wash. 2d at 769 (focus of the alternative means rule is on the jury instructions).” 295 Kan. at 194 . 2012See Wright, 290 Kan. at 201 (“Tim- ley required sufficiency of evidence to support each alternative means upon which a jury is instructed, in order to protect a criminal defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict.” [Emphasis added.]); see also Peterson, 168 Wash. 2d at 769 (focus of the alternative means rule is on the juiy instructions). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Timleyred2 sentences2019See State v. Wright , 290 Kan. 194 , 206, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) ; State v. Timley , 255 Kan. 286 , 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994) ; see also Khan v. State , 204 P.3d 1036 , 1042 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (when a defendant is charged with a crime under more than one theory , the jurors need not unanimously agree on the theory that serves as the basis for the defendant's conviction, but the jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the wrongful deed). "[A] statute-and any [jury] instruction that incorporates it-must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime , not m 2019See State v. Wright , 290 Kan. 194 , 206, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) ; State v. Timley , 255 Kan. 286 , 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994) ; see also Khan v. State , 204 P.3d 1036 , 1042 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (when a defendant is charged with a crime under more than one theory , the jurors need not unanimously agree on the theory that serves as the basis for the defendant's conviction, but the jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the wrongful deed). "[A] statute-and any [jury] instruction that incorporates it-must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime , not m | 1 | 14 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2024If an instructional error has occurred—for example, if an instruction includes a means for which there was no evidence and was thus not factually appropriate—we evaluate whether that error was harmless or reversible under the standards articulated in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012), and State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 319 Kan. ___ , Syl. ¶ 4, 552 P.3d 1 . 2024If an instructional error has occurred—for example, if an instruction includes a means for which there was no evidence and was thus not factually appropriate—we evaluate whether that error was harmless or reversible under the standards articulated in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012), and State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 319 Kan. ___ , Syl. ¶ 4, 552 P.3d 1 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2018"Alternative means are legislatively determined, distinct, material elements of a crime, as opposed to legislative descriptions of the material elements or of the factual circumstances that would prove the crime." State v. Foster , 298 Kan. 348 , Syl. ¶ 4, 352, 312 P.3d 364 (2013). 2018"Alternative means are legislatively determined, distinct, material elements of a crime, as opposed to legislative descriptions of the material elements or of the factual circumstances that would prove the crime." State v. Foster , 298 Kan. 348 , Syl. ¶ 4, 352, 312 P.3d 364 (2013). | 1 | 2 |
State v. McDonaldgreen2 sentences2013The Washington court reasoned that extending the alternative means doctrine to accomplice liability would contradict its holdings concerning “the emptiness of any distinction between principal and accomplice liability.” 138 Wash. 2d at 687-88 . 2012The Washington Supreme Court reasoned that extending the alternative means doctrine to “accomplice liability” would “contradict our holdings” concerning “the emptiness of any distinction between principal and accomplice liability.” 138 Wash. 2d at 687-88 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2004In State v. Wilson, 220 Kan. 341, 345 , 552 P.2d 931 (1976), we had upheld a first-degree murder conviction, stating, under the alternative means rule: “If a verdict of first degree murder can be justified on either of two interpretations of the evidence, premeditation or felony murder, the verdict cannot be impeached by showing that part of the jury proceeded upon one interpretation of the evidence and part on another.” In Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 , 115 L. 2004In State v. Wilson, 220 Kan. 341, 345 , 552 P.2d 931 (1976), we had upheld a first-degree murder conviction, stating, under the alternative means rule: “If a verdict of first degree murder can be justified on either of two interpretations of the evidence, premeditation or felony murder, the verdict cannot be impeached by showing that part of the jury proceeded upon one interpretation of the evidence and part on another.” In Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 , 115 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-07 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014) (analyzing alternative means error as structural error not subject to harmless error analysis). 2025See State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194, 201-07 , 224 P.3d 1159 (2010), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Brooks, 298 Kan. 672 , 317 P.3d 54 (2014) (analyzing alternative means error as structural error not subject to harmless error analysis). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Randolph v. City of Wichitagreen1 sentence2024See Estate of Randolph v. City of Wichita, 57 Kan. App. 2d 686 , 699, 459 P.3d 802 (2020). | 1 | 1 |
Khan v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See State v. Wright , 290 Kan. 194 , 206, 224 P.3d 1159 (2010) ; State v. Timley , 255 Kan. 286 , 289-90, 875 P.2d 242 (1994) ; see also Khan v. State , 204 P.3d 1036 , 1042 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009) (when a defendant is charged with a crime under more than one theory , the jurors need not unanimously agree on the theory that serves as the basis for the defendant's conviction, but the jurors must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the wrongful deed). "[A] statute-and any [jury] instruction that incorporates it-must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime , not m | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLinngreen2 sentences2018Accord, e.g., State v. McLinn , 307 Kan. 307 , 325, 409 P.3d 1 (2018). 2018Accord, e.g., State v. McLinn , 307 Kan. 307 , 325, 409 P.3d 1 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Derngreen1 sentence2017App. 2d at 786-89 ; see also Dern, 303 Kan. at 397 (discussing Schreiner). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wellsyellow2 sentences2014See State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741, 756-57 , 305 P.3d 568 (2013). 2014See State v. Wells, 297 Kan. 741, 756-57 , 305 P.3d 568 (2013). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2014See Jackson, 49 Kan. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Waldrupgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dixonyellow | 1 | 1 |
| Burks v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Beachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mortongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Alfordgreen | 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. Kitchen
yellow
2 sentences2004We recited the alternative means rule of State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (quoting State v. Kitchen, 110 Wash. 2d 403, 410 , 756 P.2d 105 [1988]); “ ‘ “In an alternative means case, where a single offense may be committed in more than, one way, there must be jury unanimity as to guilt for the single crime charged. 2004We recited the alternative means rule of State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286, 289 , 875 P.2d 242 (1994) (quoting State v. Kitchen, 110 Wash. 2d 403, 410 , 756 P.2d 105 [1988]); “ ‘ “In an alternative means case, where a single offense may be committed in more than, one way, there must be jury unanimity as to guilt for the single crime charged. | 5 | 1998–2013 |
State v. Haberlein
green
2 sentences2018This means the instruction was factually supported." 296 Kan. at 204 , 290 P.3d 640 . 2018This means the instruction was factually supported." 296 Kan. at 204 , 290 P.3d 640 . | 4 | 2015–2018 |
State v. Schreiner
green
2 sentences2017Had the jury been instructed in a manner consistent with the amended information, there would have been no basis to assert an alternative means challenge. 46 Kan. 2011Schreiner, 46 Kan. | 2 | 2011–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2012The Washington Supreme Court in Smith explained that requiring jury unanimity on such secondary matters that do not state alternative means would not “advance[] the two underlying purposes of the alternative means doctrine.” Smith, 159 Wash. 2d at 789 . 2011The court identified the two underlying purposes of the alternative means doctrine, which are “to prevent jury confusion about what criminal conduct has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and to prevent the State from charging every available means authorized under a single criminal statute, lumping them together, and then leaving it to the jury to pick freely among the various means in order to obtain a unanimous verdict. [Citations omitted.]” 159 Wash. 2d at 789 . | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Grissom
green
2 sentences2012Furthermore, the State is not required to elect between premeditated and felony murder because K.S.A. 21-3401 established the single offense of murder in tire first degree and only provides alternate methods of proving the crime.’ ” Timley, 255 Kan. at 290 (quoting Grissom, 251 Kan. 851 , Syl. ¶ 7). 1994The rule is stated in State v. Grissom, 251 Kan. 851 , Syl. ¶ 7, 840 P.2d 1142 (1992): “If an accused is charged in one count of an information with both premeditated murder and felony murder, it matters not whether some members of the jury arrive at a verdict of guilt based on proof of premeditation while others arrive at a verdict of guilt by reason of the killer’s malignant purpose. | 2 | 1994–2012 |
State v. Hoge
green
2 sentences2010See State v. Morton, 277 Kan. 575, 580-81 , 86 P.3d 535 (2004) (sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of first-degree murder by premeditation or felony murder); State v. Hoge, 276 Kan. 801, 813 , 80 P.3d 52 (2003) (court must follow Timley’s test if determining jury unanimity in an alternative means case); State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, 623 , 67 P.3d 121 (2003) (“[ujnder the alternative means analysis, ‘unanimity is not required ... as to the means by which the crime was committed so long as substantial evidence supports each alternative’ ”); State v. Carr, 265 Kan. 608 , 963 P.2d 42 2010See State v. Morton, 277 Kan. 575, 580-81 , 86 P.3d 535 (2004) (sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of first-degree murder by premeditation or felony murder); State v. Hoge, 276 Kan. 801, 813 , 80 P.3d 52 (2003) (court must follow Timley’s test if determining jury unanimity in an alternative means case); State v. Beach, 275 Kan. 603, 623 , 67 P.3d 121 (2003) (“[ujnder the alternative means analysis, ‘unanimity is not required ... as to the means by which the crime was committed so long as substantial evidence supports each alternative’ ”); State v. Carr, 265 Kan. 608 , 963 P.2d 42 | 2 | 2005–2010 |
State v. Plummer
green
2 sentences2024If an instructional error has occurred—for example, if an instruction includes a means for which there was no evidence and was thus not factually appropriate—we evaluate whether that error was harmless or reversible under the standards articulated in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012), and State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 319 Kan. ___ , Syl. ¶ 4, 552 P.3d 1 . 2024If an instructional error has occurred—for example, if an instruction includes a means for which there was no evidence and was thus not factually appropriate—we evaluate whether that error was harmless or reversible under the standards articulated in State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156 , 283 P.3d 202 (2012), and State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011). 319 Kan. ___ , Syl. ¶ 4, 552 P.3d 1 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Eddy
green
2 sentences2021State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29, 32 , 321 P.3d 12 (2014). 2021State v. Eddy, 299 Kan. 29, 32 , 321 P.3d 12 (2014). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. SancheZ
neutral
1 sentence2019App. 2d 994 , Syl. ¶ 5, 281 P.3d 576 (2012), rev. denied 297 Kan. 1255 (2012), our court held: "When there is insufficient evidence at trial to support the defendant's conviction of each alternative means of committing a crime, the proper remedy is to reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial only on the alternative means supported by sufficient evidence in the first trial." The Kansas Supreme Court identified the same remedy for an alternative means error in State v. Owen , No. 102814, 2015 WL 1309978 (Kan. 2015) (unpublished opinion). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2019App. 2d 994 , Syl. ¶ 5, 281 P.3d 576 (2012), rev. denied 297 Kan. 1255 (2012), our court held: "When there is insufficient evidence at trial to support the defendant's conviction of each alternative means of committing a crime, the proper remedy is to reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial only on the alternative means supported by sufficient evidence in the first trial." The Kansas Supreme Court identified the same remedy for an alternative means error in State v. Owen , No. 102814, 2015 WL 1309978 (Kan. 2015) (unpublished opinion). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lora
green
2 sentences2016Indeed, the factual scenario in State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 (1973), which the majority discusses, amounts to reversible error under an alternative means analysis. 2016Indeed, the factual scenario in State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184 , 515 P.2d 1086 (1973), which the majority discusses, amounts to reversible error under an alternative means analysis. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Goeller
red
2 sentences2014The Kansas Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that “restitution is the rule and a finding that restitution is unworkable the exception.” State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578, 583 , 77 P.3d 1272 (2003). 2014The Kansas Supreme Court has unequivocally declared that “restitution is the rule and a finding that restitution is unworkable the exception.” State v. Goeller, 276 Kan. 578, 583 , 77 P.3d 1272 (2003). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Castleberry
green
1 sentence2014Castleberry, 48 Kan. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Becker
yellow
2 sentences2014State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011); State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842, 855 , 235 P.3d 424 (2010). 4 We look first at the alternative means claim concerning aiding and abetting. 2014State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011); State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842, 855 , 235 P.3d 424 (2010). 4 We look first at the alternative means claim concerning aiding and abetting. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. McCaslin red | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Bailey green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Lobe green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Hedgpeth v. Pulido green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Griffin v. United States green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Ramos green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Quick green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Hooker green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Aguirre green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Kelly green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Carr green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Kesselring green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Gunby green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Schad v. Arizona red | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Lamb v. Kansas Parole Board green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.