second step analysis in Kansas

2013“First, the trial court must decide if1 “there is some fundamental failure of tire proceeding.” ’ [Citations omitted.] If so, in the second step of the analysis, the trial court must assess whether it is possible to continue tire trial without an ‘injustice/ ” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2013“First, the trial court must decide if1 “there is some fundamental failure of tire proceeding.” ’ [Citations omitted.] If so, in the second step of the analysis, the trial court must assess whether it is possible to continue tire trial without an ‘injustice/ ” State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541, 550 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012).

2025If so, the second step requires an analysis of whether the impermissibly suggestive procedure led to a substantial likelihood of misidentification." 281 Kan. at 304 .

2020If so, the second step requires an analysis of whether the impermissibly suggestive procedure led to a substantial likelihood of misidentification." 281 Kan. at 304 .

2010See Trammell, 278 Kan. at 270-71 ; State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 817-18 , 69 P.3d 571 (2003).

2010See Trammell, 278 Kan. at 270-71 ; State v. Hunt, 275 Kan. 811, 817-18 , 69 P.3d 571 (2003).

2025Jenkins, 2012 WL 1450439, at *8 .

2024The second step in the analysis is whether the defendant acted with reckless disregard or indifference to its probable consequences. 586 F.3d at 1244-45 .

2024Ed. 2d 747 (2015) (strict scrutiny requires government action "actually further[ed]" asserted interest); Carey v. Population Servs., Intl., 431 U.S. 678, 690-91 , 97 S. Ct. 2010 , 52 L.

2024Ed. 2d 747 (2015) (strict scrutiny requires government action "actually further[ed]" asserted interest); Carey v. Population Servs., Intl., 431 U.S. 678, 690-91 , 97 S. Ct. 2010 , 52 L.

2024If the government can establish an interest as compelling, it must tackle the second step in our analysis and show its regulation furthers that compelling interest See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 , 362-64, 135 S. Ct. 853 , 190 L.

2024If the government can establish an interest as compelling, it must tackle the second step in our analysis and show its regulation furthers that compelling interest See Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 , 362-64, 135 S. Ct. 853 , 190 L.

2024"To reverse for clear error, the court must be firmly convinced the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Brammer, 301 Kan. 333, 341 , 343 P.3d 75 (2015).

2024"To reverse for clear error, the court must be firmly convinced the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Brammer, 301 Kan. 333, 341 , 343 P.3d 75 (2015).

2021To determine whether Virginia Diesel had minimum contacts with Kansas, we consider the quality and nature of Virginia Diesel's activity and ask whether it was reasonable and fair to require the defendant to defend in Kansas so as not to offend traditional notions of "fair play and substantial justice." Merriman, 282 Kan. at 464-65 .

2021According to our Supreme Court in Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 854 , 942 P.2d 591 (1997), the following two-step test should be utilized when determining whether a due process violation exists: "'If a remedy protected by due process is abrogated or restricted by the legislature, "such change is constitutional if '[1] the change is reasonably necessary in the public interest to promote the general welfare of the people of the state,' and [2] the legislature provides an adequate substitute remedy" to replace the remedy which has been restricted.'[Citations omitted.]" 6 Va

2021According to our Supreme Court in Injured Workers of Kansas v. Franklin, 262 Kan. 840, 854 , 942 P.2d 591 (1997), the following two-step test should be utilized when determining whether a due process violation exists: "'If a remedy protected by due process is abrogated or restricted by the legislature, "such change is constitutional if '[1] the change is reasonably necessary in the public interest to promote the general welfare of the people of the state,' and [2] the legislature provides an adequate substitute remedy" to replace the remedy which has been restricted.'[Citations omitted.]" 6 Va

2021State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 931 , 376 P.3d 70 (2016); State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012). 13 The parties agree that, from a purely legal standpoint, criminal restraint is a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping.

2021State v. Johnson, 304 Kan. 924, 931 , 376 P.3d 70 (2016); State v. Williams, 295 Kan. 506, 510 , 286 P.3d 195 (2012). 13 The parties agree that, from a purely legal standpoint, criminal restraint is a lesser included offense of aggravated kidnapping.

2021Presuming error, we move to the second step of the analysis and determine whether such a fundamental failure "caused prejudice that could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or instruction or other means, resulting in an injustice." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 730 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016).

2021Presuming error, we move to the second step of the analysis and determine whether such a fundamental failure "caused prejudice that could not be cured or mitigated through jury admonition or instruction or other means, resulting in an injustice." State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 730 , 374 P.3d 654 (2016).

2021It noted those courts place the inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff's claim in the second step of the analysis (which addresses plaintiff's likelihood of prevailing on its claim), holding the merits are not implicated in the first step. 2017 WL 6546634 , at *5 (citing Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1304 , 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 292 [2013], which held that the defendant's assertion that he was innocent of the accused conduct is irrelevant because such an assertion is "'more suited to the second step of an anti-SLAPP motion'"); City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC, 214 Cal.

2021It noted those courts place the inquiry into the merits of the plaintiff's claim in the second step of the analysis (which addresses plaintiff's likelihood of prevailing on its claim), holding the merits are not implicated in the first step. 2017 WL 6546634 , at *5 (citing Malin v. Singer, 217 Cal. App. 4th 1283, 1304 , 159 Cal. Rptr. 3d 292 [2013], which held that the defendant's assertion that he was innocent of the accused conduct is irrelevant because such an assertion is "'more suited to the second step of an anti-SLAPP motion'"); City of Costa Mesa v. D'Alessio Investments, LLC, 214 Cal.

2020Under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 : "If it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice, which we expect will often be so, that course should be followed." Therefore, we will begin with the second step of the inquiry: Assuming without deciding that trial counsel should have obtained the jail video, did his failure to do so prejudice Garcia?

2020At the third step, we assess whether the error requires reversal and "will only reverse the district court if an error occurred and we are '"firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' Knox, 301 Kan. at 680 (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. 506 , Syl. ¶ 5)." State v. McLinn, 307 Kan. 307 , 318, 409 P.3d 1 (2018).

2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r

2017An instruction is clearly erroneous when '"the reviewing court is firmly convinced that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the instruction error not occurred."' State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 ); see Williams, 295 Kan. at 516 (explaining that the burden to show clear error remains on the party seeking reversal)." State v. Barber, 302 Kan. 367, 376-77 , 353 P.3d 1108 (2015). 5 Of note, in the second step of the analysis where we determine whether any error occurred, we consider both the legal appropriateness of the r

2017State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 433 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014).

2017State v. Armstrong, 299 Kan. 405, 433 , 324 P.3d 1052 (2014).

2014In the second step of the analysis, we look to see whether an error occurred. 284 Kan. at 244-45 ; accord Colston, 290 Kan. at 968 .