History:
L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3213; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 6; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Substantial evidence to support jury finding of excessive use of force resulting in conviction of aggravated assault; mandatory imprisonment mandated by K.S.A. 21-4618. State v. Johnson, 6 Kan. App. 2d 750, 752, 753, 634 P.2d 1137 (1981).
3. Trial court has affirmative duty to instruct on all lesser included offenses established by the evidence, even if it is weak and inconclusive. State v. Ordway, 261 Kan. 776, 784, 934 P.2d 94 (1997).
4. Defense of justification not available to person attempting to commit, committing or escaping from commission of forcible felony. State v. Jacques, 270 Kan. 173, 14 P.3d 409 (2000).
5. Cited; court discusses both subjective and objective tests for justifiable use of force. McCracken v. Kohl, 286 Kan. 1114, 1118-1120, 191 P.3d 313 (2008).
State v. Barlow, 368 P.3d 331 (Kan. 2016). “once a defendant raises justified use-of-force immunity before a court, a probable cause determination must also include a determination that die defendant’s use of force was not justified under K.”
McCracken v. Kohl, 191 P.3d 313 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 4ד21-3212, and K.S.A. 21-3213 is not available to a person who: “(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from die commission of a forcible felony; or “(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or another, with intent to use such force as an excuse to…”
State v. Jones, 311 P.3d 1125 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 2ד21-3212 [defense of dwelling], or K.S.A. 21-3213 [defense of property other than a dwelling].”
State v. Bellinger, 278 P.3d 975 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3דRobert argues the trial court also erred in failing to grant his request for a defense-of-property jury instruction in accordance with K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 21-3213. Robert claims the trial court should have allowed him to present more evidence regarding the pasture burning incident…”
State v. Hendrix, 218 P.3d 40 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 2דFinally the legislative distinction is again clearly made in K.S.A. 21-3213 which concerns defense of property other than a dwelling.”
State v. Roeder, 336 P.3d 831 (Kan. 2014). “21-3212 and K.S.A. 21-3213, deal with the use of force in defense of property, and, consequently, they have no bearing on our inquiry in this case.”
State v. Ultreras, 295 P.3d 1020 (Kan. 2013). “21-3212, or K.S.A. 21-3213. Hence, the statute as written with a probable cause standard adds an additional requirement and is meaningful.”
State v. Ordway, 934 P.2d 94 (Kan. 1997). “21-3211 provides: “A person is justified in the use of force against an aggressor when and to the extent it appears to him and he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such aggressor’s imminent use of unlawful force.”
State v. Bryant, 78 P.3d 462 (Kan. 2003). “21-3212), or in defense of other property (K.S.A. 21-3213). It has also specifically barred the justification defense described in these sections for a person who “[i]s attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible felony.”
State v. Kaiser, 918 P.2d 629 (Kan. 1996). “21-3212 and K.S.A. 21-3213. The Kansas Legislature has not enacted a defense of withdrawal from aiding and abetting.”
State v. Evans, 360 P.3d 1086 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2ד21-3212, or K.S.A. 21-3213. Hence, the statute as written with a probable cause standard adds an additional requirement and is meaningful.”
State v. McCown, 957 P.2d 401 (Kan. 1998). “21-3212 (use of force in defense of dwelling); K.S.A. 21-3213 (use of force in defense of properly other than a dwelling); K.”
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.