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

K.S.A. § 21-4637 (2026)

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

21-4637.

History: L. 1994, ch. 341, § 8; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case: State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 6× ““The standard of review as to the eight statutory mitigating circumstances differs from that for the aggravating circumstances in that they are viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant.”
State v. Spain, 953 P.2d 1004 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 7× “Mitigating circumstances, however, are not limited, and K.S.A. 21-4637 sets out eight circumstances which shall be considered but does not limit consideration to those circumstances.”
State v. Boldridge, 57 P.3d 8 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 5× “The following standard is applied regarding mitigating circumstance: *809 “Where the trial court’s refusal to find a mitigating circumstance under K.S.A. 21-4637 is challenged by the defendant, the standard of review is whether, after a review of all the evidence, viewed in a…”
State v. Warledo, 190 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 21-4637(b). Second, Warledo contended his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired because of his mental condition at the time of the incident.”
State v. Drennan, 101 P.3d 1218 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 3× “However, Drennan does not argue that his alcoholism or alcohol statement fall under any of the mitigating circumstances listed at K.S.A. 21-4637. Where a mitigating circumstance is not listed in the statute, this court reviews a trial court’s refusal to find such a mitigating…”
State v. Gholston, 35 P.3d 868 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 3× “Gholston next argues that even if this court affirms the aggravating circumstance found by the trial court, it should reverse the hard 40 sentence because the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances.”
State v. Jones, 151 P.3d 22 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 21-4637 enumerates eight mitigating factors which may be considered in a hard 50 proceeding, but this list is noninclusive: “(1) The defendant has no significant histoiy of prior criminal activity.”
State v. Moncla, 936 P.2d 727 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 2× “21-4636 and K.S.A. 21-4637, which list the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.”
State v. Washington, 123 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 21-4637(b) (“The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances.”
State v. Engelhardt, 119 P.3d 1148 (Kan. 2005). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(d). The record shows the district court considered this contention and rejected it.”
State v. Wakefield, 977 P.2d 941 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 2× “21-4636; K.S.A. 21-4637. Here, as an aggravating factor the sentencing judge relied on the fact that the defendant knowingly or purposely killed or created a great risk of death to more than one person.”
State v. Flournoy, 36 P.3d 273 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “See K.S.A. 21-4637(a). Our jurisdiction is under K.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(a) — 5 cases
State v. Flournoy, 36 P.3d 273 (Kan. 2001). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(a). Our jurisdiction is under K.”
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). ““The standard of review as to the eight statutory mitigating circumstances differs from that for the aggravating circumstances in that they are viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant.”
State v. Deiterman, 29 P.3d 411 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Brady, 929 P.2d 132 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Dieterman, 29 P.3d 411 (N.D. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(b) — 6 cases
State v. Warledo, 190 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2008). “K.S.A. 21-4637(b). Second, Warledo contended his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired because of his mental condition at the time of the incident.”
State v. Drennan, 101 P.3d 1218 (Kan. 2004). “However, Drennan does not argue that his alcoholism or alcohol statement fall under any of the mitigating circumstances listed at K.S.A. 21-4637. Where a mitigating circumstance is not listed in the statute, this court reviews a trial court’s refusal to find such a mitigating…”
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). ““The standard of review as to the eight statutory mitigating circumstances differs from that for the aggravating circumstances in that they are viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant.”
State v. Lawrence, 135 P.3d 1211 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Washington, 123 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2005). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(b) (“The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(c) — 4 cases
State v. Jones, 151 P.3d 22 (Kan. 2007). “K.S.A. 21-4637 enumerates eight mitigating factors which may be considered in a hard 50 proceeding, but this list is noninclusive: “(1) The defendant has no significant histoiy of prior criminal activity.”
State v. Gholston, 35 P.3d 868 (Kan. 2001). “Gholston next argues that even if this court affirms the aggravating circumstance found by the trial court, it should reverse the hard 40 sentence because the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances.”
State v. Higgenbotham, 957 P.2d 416 (Kan. 1998).
State v. Spain, 953 P.2d 1004 (Kan. 1998). “Mitigating circumstances, however, are not limited, and K.S.A. 21-4637 sets out eight circumstances which shall be considered but does not limit consideration to those circumstances.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(d) — 3 cases
State v. Boldridge, 57 P.3d 8 (Kan. 2002). “The following standard is applied regarding mitigating circumstance: *809 “Where the trial court’s refusal to find a mitigating circumstance under K.S.A. 21-4637 is challenged by the defendant, the standard of review is whether, after a review of all the evidence, viewed in a…”
State v. Engelhardt, 119 P.3d 1148 (Kan. 2005). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(d). The record shows the district court considered this contention and rejected it.”
State v. Lopez, 323 P.3d 1260 (Kan. 2014).
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(e) — 2 cases
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). ““The standard of review as to the eight statutory mitigating circumstances differs from that for the aggravating circumstances in that they are viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant.”
State v. Washington, 123 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2005). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(b) (“The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(f) — 3 cases
State v. Warledo, 190 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2008). “K.S.A. 21-4637(b). Second, Warledo contended his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and conform his conduct to the requirements of the law was substantially impaired because of his mental condition at the time of the incident.”
State v. Washington, 123 P.3d 1265 (Kan. 2005). “See K.S.A. 21-4637(b) (“The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances.”
State v. Appleby, 221 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(g) — 3 cases
State v. Spain, 953 P.2d 1004 (Kan. 1998). “Mitigating circumstances, however, are not limited, and K.S.A. 21-4637 sets out eight circumstances which shall be considered but does not limit consideration to those circumstances.”
State v. Gholston, 35 P.3d 868 (Kan. 2001). “Gholston next argues that even if this court affirms the aggravating circumstance found by the trial court, it should reverse the hard 40 sentence because the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances.”
State v. Lopez, 22 P.3d 1040 (Kan. 2001). ““The standard of review as to the eight statutory mitigating circumstances differs from that for the aggravating circumstances in that they are viewed in a light most favorable to the defendant.”
— K.S.A. § 21-4637(h) — 1 case
State v. Boldridge, 57 P.3d 8 (Kan. 2002). “The following standard is applied regarding mitigating circumstance: *809 “Where the trial court’s refusal to find a mitigating circumstance under K.S.A. 21-4637 is challenged by the defendant, the standard of review is whether, after a review of all the evidence, viewed in a…”
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.