K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3423 (2026)

Mistrials

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

22-3423. Mistrials. (1) The trial court may terminate the trial and order a mistrial at any time that he finds termination is necessary because:

(a) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or

(b) there is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law and the defendant requests or consents to the declaration of a mistrial; or

(c) prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to either the defendant or the prosecution; or

(d) the jury is unable to agree upon a verdict; or

(e) false statements of a juror on voir dire prevent a fair trial; or

(f) the trial has been interrupted pending a determination of the defendant's competency to stand trial.

(2) When a mistrial is ordered, the court shall direct that the case be retained on the docket for trial or such other proceedings as may be proper and that the defendant be held in custody pending such further proceedings, unless he is released pursuant to the terms of an appearance bond.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3423; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 207 cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 6× “See K.S.A. 22-3423." Ward, 2009 WL 454947, at *5 .”
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 35× “The plain language of the mistrial statute, K.S.A. 22-3423, does not permit a mistrial to be declared over a defendant's objection when the prosecutor chooses to open the State's case with hearsay evidence; a proper defense objection to that evidence is overruled; and…”
State v. Johnson – Hill, 391 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 22× “Third, K.S.A. 22-3423, which establishes a procedure for 16 declaring mistrials (which defense counsel specifically waived in this case), would have afforded Johnson ample protection if the trial judge's inattentiveness had resulted in prejudice that denied Johnson his…”
State v. Phillips, 325 P.3d 1095 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 8× “First, we hold that the Kansas criminal mistrial statute, K.S.A. 22-3423, does not require the use of specific words in order for a mistrial to be recognized or to preserve a defendant’s constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy.”
State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4× “53 K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c) authorizes the district court to declare a mistrial if prejudicial conduct occurs, either inside or outside the courtroom, that makes it impossible for the trial to proceed without injustice.”
State v. Foster, 233 P.3d 265 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 4× “This court has long used an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether denying or granting a mistrial was appropriate under K.S.A. 22-3423. State v. Culbertson, 214 Kan.”
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “345 Legal Framework and Standard of Review "K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c) permits a trial court to declare a mistrial because of prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, which makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to the defendant or the prosecution.”
State v. Longoria, 343 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “But, as noted, Longoria never moved for mistrial based on juror misconduct under the mistrial statute, K.S.A. 22-3423. Rather, he presented the issue to the trial court by (1) asking for Juror M's removal and (2) filing a motion for new trial under K.”
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 22-3423(1) allows the trial court to declare a mistrial "at any time" because: "(a) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or "(b) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict…”
State v. Fraire, 481 P.3d 129 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 2× “If it did, the district court next decides whether the prejudicial conduct made it impossible to continue the proceeding without denying the parties a fair trial.”
State v. Mays, 85 P.3d 1208 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 2× “We hold that, under K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(a), a trial court may declare a mistrial during voir dire even before the jury is sworn and jeopardy has attached.”
State v. Voyles, 160 P.3d 794 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 2× “22-3421; K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(d). We have limited the application of this federal standard, with only a few exceptions, to federal constitutional error.”
Show all 207 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(1) — 13 cases
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “K.S.A. 22-3423(1) allows the trial court to declare a mistrial "at any time" because: "(a) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or "(b) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict…”
State v. Leaper, 238 P.3d 266 (Kan. 2010).
State v. White, 161 P.3d 208 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Angelo, 197 P.3d 337 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Sappington, 169 P.3d 1096 (Kan. 2007).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(1)(a) — 4 cases
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “The plain language of the mistrial statute, K.S.A. 22-3423, does not permit a mistrial to be declared over a defendant's objection when the prosecutor chooses to open the State's case with hearsay evidence; a proper defense objection to that evidence is overruled; and…”
State v. Mays, 85 P.3d 1208 (Kan. 2004). “We hold that, under K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(a), a trial court may declare a mistrial during voir dire even before the jury is sworn and jeopardy has attached.”
State v. Price (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Grayson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(1)(b) — 6 cases
State v. Ransom, 207 P.3d 208 (Kan. 2009).
State v. Albright, 24 P.3d 103 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “K.S.A. 22-3423(1) allows the trial court to declare a mistrial "at any time" because: "(a) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or "(b) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict…”
State v. Rayton, 1 P.3d 854 (Kan. 2000).
State v. Ross (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(1)(c) — 71 cases
State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). “53 K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c) authorizes the district court to declare a mistrial if prejudicial conduct occurs, either inside or outside the courtroom, that makes it impossible for the trial to proceed without injustice.”
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011). “See K.S.A. 22-3423." Ward, 2009 WL 454947, at *5 .”
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “The plain language of the mistrial statute, K.S.A. 22-3423, does not permit a mistrial to be declared over a defendant's objection when the prosecutor chooses to open the State's case with hearsay evidence; a proper defense objection to that evidence is overruled; and…”
State v. Fraire, 481 P.3d 129 (Kan. 2021). “If it did, the district court next decides whether the prejudicial conduct made it impossible to continue the proceeding without denying the parties a fair trial.”
State v. Johnson – Hill, 391 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “Third, K.S.A. 22-3423, which establishes a procedure for 16 declaring mistrials (which defense counsel specifically waived in this case), would have afforded Johnson ample protection if the trial judge's inattentiveness had resulted in prejudice that denied Johnson his…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(1)(d) — 16 cases
State v. Voyles, 160 P.3d 794 (Kan. 2007). “22-3421; K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(d). We have limited the application of this federal standard, with only a few exceptions, to federal constitutional error.”
State v. Foster, 233 P.3d 265 (Kan. 2010). “This court has long used an abuse of discretion standard when determining whether denying or granting a mistrial was appropriate under K.S.A. 22-3423. State v. Culbertson, 214 Kan.”
State v. Santos-Vega, 321 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Jordan, 537 P.3d 443 (Kan. 2023).
State v. Thomas, 353 P.3d 1134 (Kan. 2015).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(2) — 1 case
State v. Muck, 939 P.2d 896 (Kan. 1997).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(b) — 1 case
State v. Maybin, 2 P.3d 179 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(c) — 14 cases
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). “345 Legal Framework and Standard of Review "K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(c) permits a trial court to declare a mistrial because of prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, which makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to the defendant or the prosecution.”
State v. McCorgary, 585 P.2d 1024 (Kan. 1978).
State v. Sims, 431 P.3d 288 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Sperry, 978 P.2d 933 (Kan. 1999).
State v. Wimbley, 26 P.3d 657 (Kan. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(c)(1) — 1 case
State v. Tatum, 135 P.3d 1088 (Kan. 2006).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(d) — 1 case
State v. Stallings, 792 P.2d 1013 (Kan. 1990).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(l)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Mays, 85 P.3d 1208 (Kan. 2004). “We hold that, under K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(a), a trial court may declare a mistrial during voir dire even before the jury is sworn and jeopardy has attached.”
State v. White, 67 P.3d 138 (Kan. 2003).
State v. Johnson, 932 P.2d 380 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Smith, 825 P.2d 541 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(l)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Falke, 703 P.2d 1362 (Kan. 1985).
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “K.S.A. 22-3423(1) allows the trial court to declare a mistrial "at any time" because: "(a) It is physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law; or "(b) There is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict…”
State v. Lewis, 708 P.2d 196 (Kan. 1985).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(l)(c) — 49 cases
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011). “See K.S.A. 22-3423." Ward, 2009 WL 454947, at *5 .”
State v. Johnson – Hill, 391 P.3d 711 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “Third, K.S.A. 22-3423, which establishes a procedure for 16 declaring mistrials (which defense counsel specifically waived in this case), would have afforded Johnson ample protection if the trial judge's inattentiveness had resulted in prejudice that denied Johnson his…”
State v. Logsdon, 371 P.3d 836 (Kan. 2016).
State v. McCullough, 270 P.3d 1142 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Dixon, 209 P.3d 675 (Kan. 2009).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(l)(d) — 12 cases
State v. Cheffen, 303 P.3d 1261 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Voyles, 160 P.3d 794 (Kan. 2007). “22-3421; K.S.A. 22-3423(1)(d). We have limited the application of this federal standard, with only a few exceptions, to federal constitutional error.”
State v. Brown, 318 P.3d 1005 (Kan. 2014).
State v. Holt, 175 P.3d 239 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Graham, 83 P.3d 143 (Kan. 2004).
— K.S.A. § 22-3423(l)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Turley, 840 P.2d 529 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Hopkins, 896 P.2d 373 (Kan. 1995).
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.