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

K.S.A. § 22-3501 (2026)

New trial

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

22-3501. New trial. (1) The court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to the defendant if required in the interest of justice. If trial was by the court without a jury the court on motion of a defendant for a new trial may vacate the judgment if entered, take additional testimony and direct the entry of a new judgment. A motion for a new trial based on the ground of newly discovered evidence may be made within two years after final judgment, but if an appeal is pending the court may grant the motion only on remand of the case. A motion for a new trial based on any other grounds shall be made within 14 days after the verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the 14-day period.

(2) A motion for a new trial shall be heard and determined by the court within 45 days from the date it is made.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3501; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 25; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147 cases (34 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Holt, 313 P.3d 826 (Kan. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Holt, 313 P.3d 826 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 26× “22-3504; a letter to the district court, which was treated as a motion for reconsideration; and the motion for new trial under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3501 (republished without amendment as K.”
State v. Butler, 416 P.3d 116 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “Butler next claims the district court erred when it denied his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
Taylor v. State, 834 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1992). · cites it 8× “The scope of review for a request for a new trial based on a claim of newly discovered evidence after the K.S.A. 22-3501 two-year limitation has expired is set forth in State v.”
Skaggs v. State, 479 P.3d 499 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 5× “Here, however, we are faced with a prefatory issue: whether the new evidence of actual innocence presented by Skaggs is sufficient to show manifest injustice for purposes of overcoming the procedural one-year time limitation applicable to his motion.”
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993). · cites it 2× “Rule 33 (1992) (two years); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3501 (1988) (two years); La.”
State v. Brownlee, 354 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “Under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3501, a district judge should grant a defendant's request for a new trial when doing so is in "the interest of justice.”
State v. Phillips, 437 P.3d 961 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 6× “The issue presented asks: for purposes of the timeliness of a K.S.A. 22-3501 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, when is a judgment final? We conclude the district court correctly held the two-year period in which the motion must be filed began from the date…”
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.”
State v. LaPointe, 434 P.3d 850 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 2× “In all other respects it is treated as a motion for new trial governed by the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3501 : 'The court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to him if required in the interest of justice.”
State v. Davidson, 510 P.3d 701 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 10× “Appellate courts review a district court's refusal to consider a motion for new trial filed under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3501 as a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Jackson, 874 P.2d 1138 (Kan. 1994). · cites it 4× “A. 22-3210(d) motions clearly specify whether and in what circumstances a hearing or appointment of counsel is required.”
State v. Nunn, 802 P.2d 547 (Kan. 1990). · cites it 6× “22-4503, and counsel must be provided to an indigent defendant for the purposes of such a motion.”
Show all 147 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 22-3501(1) — 82 cases
State v. Holt, 313 P.3d 826 (Kan. 2013). “22-3504; a letter to the district court, which was treated as a motion for reconsideration; and the motion for new trial under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3501 (republished without amendment as K.”
State v. Butler, 416 P.3d 116 (Kan. 2018). “Butler next claims the district court erred when it denied his motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel.”
State v. Hirsh, 446 P.3d 472 (Kan. 2019).
State v. Phillips, 437 P.3d 961 (Kan. 2019). “The issue presented asks: for purposes of the timeliness of a K.S.A. 22-3501 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, when is a judgment final? We conclude the district court correctly held the two-year period in which the motion must be filed began from the date…”
State v. Longoria, 343 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2015). “But, as noted, Longoria never moved for mistrial based on juror misconduct under the mistrial statute, K.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3501(2) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Owens v. Hodge, 641 P.2d 399 (Kan. 1982).
State v. Deal, 206 P.3d 529 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Hall, 847 P.2d 1288 (Kan. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 22-3501(l) — 1 case
State v. Holt, 313 P.3d 826 (Kan. 2013). “22-3504; a letter to the district court, which was treated as a motion for reconsideration; and the motion for new trial under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 22-3501 (republished without amendment as 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.