K.S.A. § 21-3107
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
21-3107.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3107; L. 1974, ch. 146, § 1; L. 1983, ch. 107, § 1; L. 1998, ch. 185, § 1; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 397
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: State v. Schoonover
State v. Schoonover (2006)
“3d 95 (2004) (single act of violence paradigm concerning multiplicity unaffected by 1998 amendments to K.S.A. 21-3107), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both tire common-law elements test and the “single act/merger” test.”
State v. Garcia (2001)
“However, the legislature added another layer to the multiplicity analysis with the passage of K.S.A. 21-3107. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan.”
State v. Scott (2008)
“21-3436 (precluding application of K.S.A. 21-3107[2] to specific felony offenses regardless of whether such felony is distinct from the alleged homicide).”
Trotter v. State (2009)
“3d 801 (2008), which raised the same issue as we consider here, but under a previous version of K.S.A. 21-3107. The statute, as considered in Scott , stated: *122 “Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included crime, but…”
State v. Robbins (2001)
“However, where the criminal conduct of the defendant supports convictions for more than one crime, K.S.A. 21-3107 provides statutory authority for multiple convictions even though the criminal conduct of a defendant consists of a single transaction.”
State v. Groves (2004)
““We acknowledge since Warren and Vontress were decided, K.S.A. 21-3107 has been amended to remove former K.”
State v. Mason (1992)
“I would hold that sexual battery is a crime that necessarily is proved if a rape or sodomy is proved (K.S.A. 21-3107[2][d]) and the same act of force was used to convict the defendant of attempted rape, rape, attempted sodomy, or sodomy.”
State v. Williams (1999)
“In order to implement and define the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy, the Kansas Legislature enacted K.S.A. 21-3107 and K.S.A. 21-3108. K.S.A.”
State v. Hensley (2013)
“2d 885 (1984) (explaining that provisions contained in K.S.A. 21-3107 were enacted in order to implement and define the constitutional guarantees of the Double Jeopardy Clause).”
State v. Mincey (1998)
“, the method for determining if there were multiple prosecutions and punishment for the same offense was the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, which protects against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution…”
State v. McKissack (2007)
“” Garcia dealt with multiplicity under K.S.A. 21-3107, which contains language identical to the statute in effect at the time of Keeler .”
State v. Freeman (1984)
“In order to implement and define the constitutional guarantees of the double jeopardy clause, the Kansas legislature enacted two statutes: (1) K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(1) — 30 cases
State v. Garcia (2001)
“However, the legislature added another layer to the multiplicity analysis with the passage of K.S.A. 21-3107. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan.”
State v. Schoonover (2006)
“3d 95 (2004) (single act of violence paradigm concerning multiplicity unaffected by 1998 amendments to K.S.A. 21-3107), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both tire common-law elements test and the “single act/merger” test.”
State v. McKissack (2007)
“” Garcia dealt with multiplicity under K.S.A. 21-3107, which contains language identical to the statute in effect at the time of Keeler .”
State v. Thompson (2008)
State v. Edwards (1992)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2) — 99 cases
State v. Garcia (2001)
“However, the legislature added another layer to the multiplicity analysis with the passage of K.S.A. 21-3107. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan.”
Trotter v. State (2009)
“3d 801 (2008), which raised the same issue as we consider here, but under a previous version of K.S.A. 21-3107. The statute, as considered in Scott , stated: *122 “Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included crime, but…”
State v. Scott (2008)
“21-3436 (precluding application of K.S.A. 21-3107[2] to specific felony offenses regardless of whether such felony is distinct from the alleged homicide).”
State v. Mason (1992)
“I would hold that sexual battery is a crime that necessarily is proved if a rape or sodomy is proved (K.S.A. 21-3107[2][d]) and the same act of force was used to convict the defendant of attempted rape, rape, attempted sodomy, or sodomy.”
State v. Schoonover (2006)
“3d 95 (2004) (single act of violence paradigm concerning multiplicity unaffected by 1998 amendments to K.S.A. 21-3107), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both tire common-law elements test and the “single act/merger” test.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2)(a) — 58 cases
State v. Bridges (2013)
State v. Plummer (2012)
State v. Cheever (2012)
State v. Gibson (1990)
State v. Dale (2020)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2)(b) — 50 cases
State v. Hensley (2013)
“2d 885 (1984) (explaining that provisions contained in K.S.A. 21-3107 were enacted in order to implement and define the constitutional guarantees of the Double Jeopardy Clause).”
State v. Schoonover (2006)
“3d 95 (2004) (single act of violence paradigm concerning multiplicity unaffected by 1998 amendments to K.S.A. 21-3107), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both tire common-law elements test and the “single act/merger” test.”
State v. Toothman (2019)
State v. Garcia (2001)
“However, the legislature added another layer to the multiplicity analysis with the passage of K.S.A. 21-3107. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan.”
State v. Warledo (2008)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2)(c) — 15 cases
State v. Hernandez (2012)
Thuko v. State (2019)
State v. Breeden (2013)
State v. Weber (2013)
State v. Knight (2010)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2)(d) — 96 cases
State v. Garcia (2001)
“However, the legislature added another layer to the multiplicity analysis with the passage of K.S.A. 21-3107. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan.”
State v. Schoonover (2006)
“3d 95 (2004) (single act of violence paradigm concerning multiplicity unaffected by 1998 amendments to K.S.A. 21-3107), in holding that multiplicity claims must be analyzed under both tire common-law elements test and the “single act/merger” test.”
State v. Scott (2008)
“21-3436 (precluding application of K.S.A. 21-3107[2] to specific felony offenses regardless of whether such felony is distinct from the alleged homicide).”
State v. Robbins (2001)
“However, where the criminal conduct of the defendant supports convictions for more than one crime, K.S.A. 21-3107 provides statutory authority for multiple convictions even though the criminal conduct of a defendant consists of a single transaction.”
State v. Mason (1992)
“I would hold that sexual battery is a crime that necessarily is proved if a rape or sodomy is proved (K.S.A. 21-3107[2][d]) and the same act of force was used to convict the defendant of attempted rape, rape, attempted sodomy, or sodomy.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(2)(ri) — 1 case
State v. Coberly (1983)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(3) — 138 cases
State v. Gould (2001)
State v. Williams (1999)
“In order to implement and define the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy, the Kansas Legislature enacted K.S.A. 21-3107 and K.S.A. 21-3108. K.S.A.”
State v. McKinney (1998)
State v. Rush (1994)
State v. Cordray (2004)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(a) — 1 case
State v. Foster (2010)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(b) — 1 case
State v. Foster (2010)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(c) — 1 case
State v. Rader (1994)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(c)(2) — 1 case
State v. McCarley (2007)
— K.S.A. § 21-3107(d)(2) — 1 case
State v. Fisher (2007)
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.