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

K.S.A. § 21-4623 (2026)

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

21-4623.

History: L. 1990, ch. 99, § 3; L. 1994, ch. 252, § 3; L. 2004, ch. 102, § 2; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 9; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 20× “The day before sentencing, Thurber filed a motion to determine whether he was intellectually disabled under K.S.A. 21-4623. The district court considered that motion at the sentencing hearing.”
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). · cites it 8× “Code §§ 35-36 -9—2 through 35-36-9—6; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 . [13] N. Y.Crim.”
Bowling v. Commonwealth, 163 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005). · cites it 10× “" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (a). The Virginia statute requires a hearing unless the claim is deemed "frivolous.”
Jenkins v. State, 498 S.E.2d 502 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 4× “§§ 35-36-9-4, -6; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (d); Ky.Rev.Stat.”
Ex Parte Briseno, 135 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). “See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (2002) and Ky.Rev.”
State v. Richardson, 494 P.3d 1280 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 5× “About a month after this filing, Richardson filed an amendment to her motion claiming that her sentence did not conform to the requirements of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4623. She argued that when the court imposed the sentence, a psychological evaluation showed that she 3 suffered…”
Ex Parte Perkins, 851 So. 2d 453 (Ala. 2002). “§ 35-36-9-2 (1998); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (e) (1995); Ky.”
Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005). “§ 53a-46a (West 2001); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (1995); Ky.Rev.”
Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001). “" See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (e) (1995). In my mind, the majority's evidence of a nationwide consensus is simply insufficient to legitimately conclude that Article I, section 16 constitutionally mandates a categorical prohibition on such executions in this state.”
Stallworth v. State, 868 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (e) (1995); "`Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning' is defined as an intelligence quotient (I.”
State v. Strode, 232 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2007). “) (providing that the condition must have manifested by the age of eighteen); Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-4623 (e) & 76-12b01 (Westlaw through 2006 Sess.”
Stripling v. State, 711 S.E.2d 665 (Ga. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4623 (e) (2001) (providing that "`mentally retarded' means having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4623(a) — 1 case
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). “The day before sentencing, Thurber filed a motion to determine whether he was intellectually disabled under K.S.A. 21-4623. The district court considered that motion at the sentencing hearing.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4623(a)(l)(C) — 1 case
State v. Holman, 284 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2012).
— K.S.A. § 21-4623(b) — 1 case
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). “The day before sentencing, Thurber filed a motion to determine whether he was intellectually disabled under K.S.A. 21-4623. The district court considered that motion at the sentencing hearing.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4623(e) — 1 case
State v. Thurber, 420 P.3d 389 (Kan. 2018). “The day before sentencing, Thurber filed a motion to determine whether he was intellectually disabled under K.S.A. 21-4623. The district court considered that motion at the sentencing hearing.”
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.