K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3106 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3106.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3106; L. 1986, ch. 118, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 306, § 20; L. 1992, ch. 321, § 20; L. 1993, ch. 253, § 13; L. 1994, ch. 296, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 267, § 13; L. 1998, ch. 52, § 2; L. 1998, ch. 185, § 4; L. 2001, ch. 208, § 3; L. 2005, ch. 162, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 146, § 4; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 14× “" K.S.A. 21-3106. In other words, the majority's magical provision declaring that an offense is committed when every element occurs is direct authority only when a court is determining whether the time limit for prosecuting an offense has expired.”
State v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 1069 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 6× “Under the holdings of Stogner and Nunn , we conclude that application of the amended K.S.A. 21-3106 resurrects a previously time-barred prosecution and violates Article I, § 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Bentley, 721 P.2d 227 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 12× “The issue on appeal concerns the criminal statute of limitations (K.S.A. 21-3106) and whether a threat to a child not to tell anyone what the defendant had done constitutes concealment and tolls the running of the statute of limitations.”
State v. Jamison, 806 P.2d 972 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 20× “In the dissent it is argued that the statute of limitations had run under K.S.A. 21-3106 because the State waited from August 12, 1987, to June 21, 1988, to refile its complaint and Jamison was not arrested until August 18, 1989.”
State v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “Step One: Prosecutorial Misconduct Inkelaar argues misconduct occurred because the prosecutor misrepresented the legal effect of the statute of limitations relevant to the crimes at issue, K.S.A. 21-3106 (recodified at K.S.A. 21-5107, effective July 1, 2011, see L.”
State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3106(2) requires that prosecution for aggravated criminal sodomy and indecent liberties with a child, among other offenses, must commence within five years after commission of the offense.”
State v. Washington, 752 P.2d 1084 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 11× “Washington contends that the State failed to prosecute him within the legal time limits required by K.S.A. 21-3106. We agree and reverse the trial court.”
State v. Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991). · cites it 7× “K.S.A. 21-3106 sets out the various time limitations within which a prosecution must be commenced.”
State v. Belt, 179 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 6× “Although the statute has been modified numerous times over the years in which the crimes at issue occurred, the following rules have been constant: A limitations period starts running when a crime is committed; the period within which a prosecution must be commenced “shall not…”
Hernandez v. State, 127 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “5/3-7(c) (2003); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3106 (9)(d) (2002); Mont.”
State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “The statute of limitations for prosecution of identity theft is 2 years pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3106(8). The question is whether K.”
In re P.R.G., 244 P.3d 279 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 7× “21-3106(5) (now K.S.A. 21-3106[7]) only applied to adult criminal prosecutions and there was no comparable statute in the juvenile code.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(1) — 2 cases
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). “" K.S.A. 21-3106. In other words, the majority's magical provision declaring that an offense is committed when every element occurs is direct authority only when a court is determining whether the time limit for prosecuting an offense has expired.”
State v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 1069 (Kan. 2007). “Under the holdings of Stogner and Nunn , we conclude that application of the amended K.S.A. 21-3106 resurrects a previously time-barred prosecution and violates Article I, § 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(10) — 4 cases
State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “The statute of limitations for prosecution of identity theft is 2 years pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3106(8). The question is whether K.”
State v. Dozal, 65 P.3d 217 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Watkins, 190 P.3d 266 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Green, 172 P.3d 1213 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(11) — 4 cases
State v. McDowell, 111 P.3d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Watkins, 190 P.3d 266 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Long, 75 P.3d 1217 (Kan. 2003).
State v. Overton, 112 P.3d 244 (Kan. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(2) — 7 cases
State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268 (Kan. 1989). “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3106(2) requires that prosecution for aggravated criminal sodomy and indecent liberties with a child, among other offenses, must commence within five years after commission of the offense.”
State v. Washington, 752 P.2d 1084 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Washington contends that the State failed to prosecute him within the legal time limits required by K.S.A. 21-3106. We agree and reverse the trial court.”
State v. Noah, 788 P.2d 257 (Kan. 1990).
State v. Houck, 727 P.2d 460 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Grauerholz, 654 P.2d 395 (Kan. 1982).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(3) — 13 cases
State v. Jamison, 806 P.2d 972 (Kan. 1991). “In the dissent it is argued that the statute of limitations had run under K.S.A. 21-3106 because the State waited from August 12, 1987, to June 21, 1988, to refile its complaint and Jamison was not arrested until August 18, 1989.”
State v. Robbins, 32 P.3d 171 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268 (Kan. 1989). “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3106(2) requires that prosecution for aggravated criminal sodomy and indecent liberties with a child, among other offenses, must commence within five years after commission of the offense.”
State v. Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991). “K.S.A. 21-3106 sets out the various time limitations within which a prosecution must be commenced.”
State v. Bentley, 721 P.2d 227 (Kan. 1986). “The issue on appeal concerns the criminal statute of limitations (K.S.A. 21-3106) and whether a threat to a child not to tell anyone what the defendant had done constitutes concealment and tolls the running of the statute of limitations.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Miller, 722 P.2d 1131 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
Casey v. State (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(3)(c) — 6 cases
State v. Gainer, 608 P.2d 968 (Kan. 1980).
State v. Grauerholz, 654 P.2d 395 (Kan. 1982).
State v. Bentley, 721 P.2d 227 (Kan. 1986). “The issue on appeal concerns the criminal statute of limitations (K.S.A. 21-3106) and whether a threat to a child not to tell anyone what the defendant had done constitutes concealment and tolls the running of the statute of limitations.”
State v. Mills, 707 P.2d 1079 (Kan. 1985).
State v. Miller, 722 P.2d 1131 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(4) — 8 cases
State v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 1069 (Kan. 2007). “Under the holdings of Stogner and Nunn , we conclude that application of the amended K.S.A. 21-3106 resurrects a previously time-barred prosecution and violates Article I, § 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268 (Kan. 1989). “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3106(2) requires that prosecution for aggravated criminal sodomy and indecent liberties with a child, among other offenses, must commence within five years after commission of the offense.”
In re Kline, 311 P.3d 321 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Belt, 179 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2008). “Although the statute has been modified numerous times over the years in which the crimes at issue occurred, the following rules have been constant: A limitations period starts running when a crime is committed; the period within which a prosecution must be commenced “shall not…”
State v. Jones, 775 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(4)(c) — 1 case
State v. Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991). “K.S.A. 21-3106 sets out the various time limitations within which a prosecution must be commenced.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(5) — 10 cases
State v. Marshall & Brown-Sidorowicz, P.A., 577 P.2d 803 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
In re P.R.G., 244 P.3d 279 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “21-3106(5) (now K.S.A. 21-3106[7]) only applied to adult criminal prosecutions and there was no comparable statute in the juvenile code.”
State v. Speed, 961 P.2d 13 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Belt, 179 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2008). “Although the statute has been modified numerous times over the years in which the crimes at issue occurred, the following rules have been constant: A limitations period starts running when a crime is committed; the period within which a prosecution must be commenced “shall not…”
State v. Jones, 775 P.2d 183 (Kan. Ct. App. 1989).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(5)(f) — 1 case
State v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2011). “Step One: Prosecutorial Misconduct Inkelaar argues misconduct occurred because the prosecutor misrepresented the legal effect of the statute of limitations relevant to the crimes at issue, K.S.A. 21-3106 (recodified at K.S.A. 21-5107, effective July 1, 2011, see L.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(6) — 6 cases
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). “" K.S.A. 21-3106. In other words, the majority's magical provision declaring that an offense is committed when every element occurs is direct authority only when a court is determining whether the time limit for prosecuting an offense has expired.”
State v. Nunn, 768 P.2d 268 (Kan. 1989). “K.S.A. 1987 Supp. 21-3106(2) requires that prosecution for aggravated criminal sodomy and indecent liberties with a child, among other offenses, must commence within five years after commission of the offense.”
State v. Jamison, 806 P.2d 972 (Kan. 1991). “In the dissent it is argued that the statute of limitations had run under K.S.A. 21-3106 because the State waited from August 12, 1987, to June 21, 1988, to refile its complaint and Jamison was not arrested until August 18, 1989.”
State v. Washington, 752 P.2d 1084 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “Washington contends that the State failed to prosecute him within the legal time limits required by K.S.A. 21-3106. We agree and reverse the trial court.”
State v. Washington, 752 P.2d 1084 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(6)(a) — 1 case
State v. Speed, 961 P.2d 13 (Kan. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(6)(c) — 1 case
State v. Wilkins, 985 P.2d 690 (Kan. 1999).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(6)(f) — 1 case
State v. Bolinger, 547 P.3d 575 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(7) — 4 cases
In re P.R.G., 244 P.3d 279 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “21-3106(5) (now K.S.A. 21-3106[7]) only applied to adult criminal prosecutions and there was no comparable statute in the juvenile code.”
State v. Dozal, 65 P.3d 217 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Auch, 185 P.3d 935 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Prg, 244 P.3d 279 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(7)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 169 P.3d 1069 (Kan. 2007). “Under the holdings of Stogner and Nunn , we conclude that application of the amended K.S.A. 21-3106 resurrects a previously time-barred prosecution and violates Article I, § 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution.”
State v. Lee, 948 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(8) — 8 cases
State v. Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “The statute of limitations for prosecution of identity theft is 2 years pursuant to K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3106(8). The question is whether K.”
State v. Lee, 948 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Watkins, 190 P.3d 266 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Long, 75 P.3d 1217 (Kan. 2003).
State v. McDowell, 111 P.3d 193 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(8)(d) — 1 case
Seaton v. State, 998 P.2d 131 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(8)(f) — 1 case
State v. Bolinger, 547 P.3d 575 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(8)(f)(i) — 1 case
State v. Bolinger, 547 P.3d 575 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(8)(f)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Bolinger, 547 P.3d 575 (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(9) — 2 cases
State v. Donham, 24 P.3d 750 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Lee, 948 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(9)(b) — 1 case
State v. Watkins, 190 P.3d 266 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 21-3106(9)(d) — 1 case
Mark Medley v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2006).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.