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

K.S.A. § 21-3608 (2026)

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

21-3608.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3608; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 36; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 59; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Wilson, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wilson, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 44× “: This is an appeal by Steven and Gloria Wilson of their convictions for endangering a child in violation of K.S.A. 21-3608. The Wilsons challenge (1) the constitutionality of K.”
State v. Cummings, 243 P.3d 697 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 53× “In order to establish the general criminal intent necessary to convict Cummings of violating K.S.A. 21-3608, then, the State was required to prove Cummings purposely, willfully, and nonaccidentally placed K.”
State v. Cummings, 305 P.3d 556 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 9× “21-3608(a) (then K.S.A. 21-3608[l][b] [Ensley]) was challenged as being unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Fisher, 631 P.2d 239 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 8× “We conclude that K.S.A. 21-3608 (1)(b) is clear and understandable; that ordinary persons can determine what conduct is proscribed by a common-sense reading of the statute; that the statute conveys a sufficiently definite warning when measured by common understanding; and that…”
State v. Hillard, 491 P.3d 1223 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 4× “The State's interest in protecting children is compelling, and K.S.A. 21-3608 is reasonably drawn to carry out that legislative purpose.”
State v. Prouse, 767 P.2d 1308 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 4× “21-3404) and endangering a child (K.S.A. 21-3608). Defendant could not be found guilty of all four charges.”
United States v. Vaughan, 58 M.J. 29 (C.A.A.F. 2003). · cites it 2× “” Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3608 (1998). 13. Kentucky: A.”
State v. Meinert, 594 P.2d 232 (Kan. 1979). · cites it 5× “*817 K.S.A. 21-3608 provides in pertinent parts: “Endangering a child.”
State v. Boyd, 127 P.3d 998 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 3× “Boyd requested jury instructions on endangering a child, K.S.A. 21-3608, and criminal restraint, K.”
Nicol v. Auburn-Washburn USD 437, 231 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Kan. 2002). · cites it 10× “In addition, in Count 5 of her complaint, plaintiff alleges violations “under state law for endangering a child” pursuant to “K.S.A. § 21-3608.” (Id. at 10). Defendants assert plaintiff has faded to state a claim in either Count 4 or Count 5.”
State v. Daniels, 91 P.3d 1147 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “and Dante in violation of K.S.A. 21-3608. The jury was instructed that in order to find Daniels guilty, it must find “[t]hat the defendant intentionally and unreasonably caused or permitted Dante and [D.”
State v. Bolze-Sann, 352 P.3d 511 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 2× “21-3608a[a] criminalizing aggravated endangering a child, meaning, as relevant here, recklessly causing a child to be placed in a situation where his or her life, body, or health is injured or endangered). Certainly, Typer apparently napped without incident for a period of time…”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1) — 3 cases
State v. Cummings, 305 P.3d 556 (Kan. 2013). “21-3608(a) (then K.S.A. 21-3608[l][b] [Ensley]) was challenged as being unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. Carpenter, 642 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1982).
City of Lincoln Ctr. v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 274 P.3d 680 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(A) — 1 case
United States v. Gumbs, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (D. Kan. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Hillard, 491 P.3d 1223 (Kan. 2021). “The State's interest in protecting children is compelling, and K.S.A. 21-3608 is reasonably drawn to carry out that legislative purpose.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Fisher, 631 P.2d 239 (Kan. 1981). “We conclude that K.S.A. 21-3608 (1)(b) is clear and understandable; that ordinary persons can determine what conduct is proscribed by a common-sense reading of the statute; that the statute conveys a sufficiently definite warning when measured by common understanding; and that…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(fc) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999). “: This is an appeal by Steven and Gloria Wilson of their convictions for endangering a child in violation of K.S.A. 21-3608. The Wilsons challenge (1) the constitutionality of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(h) — 1 case
State v. Wilson, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999). “: This is an appeal by Steven and Gloria Wilson of their convictions for endangering a child in violation of K.S.A. 21-3608. The Wilsons challenge (1) the constitutionality of K.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(1)(¾) — 1 case
State v. Cummings, 305 P.3d 556 (Kan. 2013). “21-3608(a) (then K.S.A. 21-3608[l][b] [Ensley]) was challenged as being unconstitutionally vague.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(a) — 14 cases
State v. Wilson, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999). “: This is an appeal by Steven and Gloria Wilson of their convictions for endangering a child in violation of K.S.A. 21-3608. The Wilsons challenge (1) the constitutionality of K.”
State v. Cummings, 243 P.3d 697 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “In order to establish the general criminal intent necessary to convict Cummings of violating K.S.A. 21-3608, then, the State was required to prove Cummings purposely, willfully, and nonaccidentally placed K.”
State v. Cummings, 305 P.3d 556 (Kan. 2013). “21-3608(a) (then K.S.A. 21-3608[l][b] [Ensley]) was challenged as being unconstitutionally vague.”
State v. DuMars, 108 P.3d 448 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Williams, 329 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(c) — 1 case
State v. Donaldson, 133 P.3d 154 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Meinert, 594 P.2d 232 (Kan. 1979). “*817 K.S.A. 21-3608 provides in pertinent parts: “Endangering a child.”
State v. Carpenter, 642 P.2d 998 (Kan. 1982).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(l)(b) — 5 cases
State v. Walker, 768 P.2d 290 (Kan. 1989).
State v. Fisher, 631 P.2d 239 (Kan. 1981). “We conclude that K.S.A. 21-3608 (1)(b) is clear and understandable; that ordinary persons can determine what conduct is proscribed by a common-sense reading of the statute; that the statute conveys a sufficiently definite warning when measured by common understanding; and that…”
State v. Dean, 208 P.3d 343 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
United States v. Gumbs, 16 F. Supp. 3d 1292 (D. Kan. 2014).
State v. Brooks, 618 P.2d 830 (Kan. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(l)(fc) — 1 case
State v. Brooks, 618 P.2d 830 (Kan. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 21-3608(l)(fe) — 1 case
State v. Fisher, 631 P.2d 239 (Kan. 1981). “We conclude that K.S.A. 21-3608 (1)(b) is clear and understandable; that ordinary persons can determine what conduct is proscribed by a common-sense reading of the statute; that the statute conveys a sufficiently definite warning when measured by common understanding; and that…”
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.