The Kansas Supreme Court was recently asked to reach an unpreserved, section 5-based argument but declined do so, explaining that the defendant's argument presented a novel and consequential issue, for which argument and an analysis from the district court would have been helpful. State v. Huggins, 319 Kan. 358, 362, 554 P.3d 661 (2024).

The panel reasoned both that the jury instructions, considered collectively, correctly stated the burden of proof, the elements of the charged crimes, and the definition of intentionally as a culpable mental state and that those legal principles were appropriately incorporated into the lawyers' closing arguments to the jury. 2018 WL 3602970, at *12-13; see State v. Huggins, 319 Kan. 358, 363, 554 P.3d 661 (2024) (clear error standard).

But the same court has also elected not to apply the preservation exceptions to novel and consequential issues alleging violations of section 5, even if they were applicable. State v. Huggins, 319 Kan. 358, 362, 554 P.3d 661 (2024).