60-2105.
Technical and inadvertent errors.
The appellate court shall disregard all mere technical errors and irregularities which do not affirmatively appear to have prejudicially affected the substantial rights of the party complaining, where it appears upon the whole record that substantial justice has been done by the judgment or order of the trial court; and in any case pending before it, the court shall render such final judgment as it deems that justice requires, or direct such judgment to be rendered by the court from which the appeal was taken, without regard to technical errors and irregularities in the proceedings of the trial court.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-2105; January 1, 1964.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
115
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case:
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 36× “Addressing the two issues considered by the Court of Appeals, we affirm the district court and the Court of Appeals, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and the evidence was sufficient.”
State v. Dunn, 375 P.3d 332 (Kan. 2016).
· cites it 4× “60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105. The third type of error, a charging document sufficiency problem based on federal or state constitutional due process or notice provisions, like the second type of error, becomes more difficult to remedy the longer it goes unaddressed.”
State v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 5× “ISSUE 2: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct during cross-examination of the defendant's brother? Next, Inkelaar contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination of his brother, Tyrone, who testified on behalf of the defense.”
State v. Gilliland, 276 P.3d 165 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 60-2105; see K.S.A. 60-261 (“The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.”
State v. McCullough, 270 P.3d 1142 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The degree of certainty required to conclude an injustice did not occur varies depending on whether the fundamental failure infringes on a constitutional right or not.”
State v. Logsdon, 371 P.3d 836 (Kan. 2016).
“60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105 or else Chapman, depending on the nature of the right allegedly affected.”
State v. Tully, 262 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2011).
· cites it 2× “60-261, K.S.A. 60-2105, and Chapman v. California, 386 U.”
State v. Brownlee, 354 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2015).
· cites it 2× “The degree of certainty required to conclude an injustice did not occur varies depending on whether the fundamental failure infringes on a constitutional right.”
State v. Dupree, 371 P.3d 862 (Kan. 2016).
“Rather, the Kansas Legislature has generally directed that “[a] t every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party’s substantial rights.”
State v. Brown, 513 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2022).
· cites it 2× “60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105, a trial error is reversible only if it prejudices a defendant's substantial rights.”
State v. Marks, 298 P.3d 1102 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 2× “60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105 to determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the trial’s outcome.”
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 2× “60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105. HOLMES, C.J., and McFARLAND, J.”
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.