State v. Hurd

28 Citing cases

  1. State v. Smith-Parker

    301 Kan. 132 (Kan. 2014)   Cited 122 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding cumulative error required reversal because "[t]he combination of the overall weakness of the evidence ... and multiple serious procedural defects tainting the process mean[t] [defendant] was substantially prejudiced under the totality of the circumstances and denied a fair trial"

    Finally, if an error occurred in the preceding steps, the appellate court considers whether the error resulted in prejudice, i.e., whether it affected a party's substantial rights.” State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, Syl. ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 696 (2013).

  2. State v. Robinson

    303 Kan. 11 (Kan. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    In State v. Robinson, 303 Kan. 11, 221, 363 P.3d 875 (2015), disapproved on other grounds by State v. Cheever, 304 Kan. 866, 375 P.3d 979 (2016), our Supreme Court stated that appellate courts review best evidence challenges for abuse of discretion.

    It is also inconsistent with the standard we have applied to due process challenges founded on allegations of judicial bias. See State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555 , 570, 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (“Recusal is required under the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause *104 when the judge is actually biased or there is a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias. [Citation omitted.]”); State v. Sawyer, 297 Kan. 902 , 909-10, 305 P.3d 608 (2013) (same).

  3. State v. Brown

    58 Kan. App. 2d 599 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    We review this decision for an abuse of discretion." State v. Hurd , 298 Kan. 555, 561, 316 P.3d 696 (2013). On the third step, if an error occurred in the preceding steps, courts determine whether the error resulted in prejudice, i.e., whether the error affected a party's substantial rights.

  4. State v. Mata-Deras

    No. 120,959 (Kan. Ct. App. May. 22, 2020)

    We review potential joinder error using a three-step analysis, applying a different standard of review at each step. State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 561, 316 P.3d 696 (2013). First, we must consider whether K.S.A. 22-3203 permits the joinder.

  5. State v. Moyer

    306 Kan. 342 (Kan. 2015)   Cited 52 times
    Finding that appellate court must decide the legal sufficiency of the affidavit and not the truth of the facts alleged

    01(b), Canon 2, Rule 2.2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 735); [2] K.S.A. 20-311d(c) ; and [3] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Hurd , 298 Kan. 555, 568, 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (citing State v. Sawyer , 297 Kan. at 905-06, 305 P.3d 608 ). Moyer contends that all three bases required Judge Showalter to recuse in this case.

  6. State v. Bliss

    498 P.3d 1220 (Kan. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 9 times
    In Bliss, we held that a defendant's ambiguous objection for " ‘the record’ " could not preserve his claim for review, since it did not identify the rule the objection was based on.

    • First, we determine whether K.S.A. 22-3203 —which allows "multiple complaints against a defendant" to be tried together "if the State could have brought the charges in a single complaint"—permits consolidation of the cases. State v. Hurd , 298 Kan. 555, Syl. ¶ 1, 316 P.3d 696 (2013). K.S.A. 22-3202 lists three circumstances where charges for multiple offenses may be filed in a single complaint, including when the charges are based on two or more acts "connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan."

  7. State v. Moyer

    No. 105,183 (Kan. May. 17, 2017)

    2 (2013 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 735); [2] K.S.A. 20-311d(c); and [3] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 568, 316 P.3d 696 (2013) (citing State v. Sawyer, 297 Kan. at 905-06). Moyer contends that all three bases required Judge Showalter to recuse in this case.

  8. State v. Ritz

    305 Kan. 956 (Kan. 2017)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that an overlap in the crimes charged is not enough to establish that crimes are of the same or similar character—there must be other factual similarities

    K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 60–261." State v. Hurd , 298 Kan. 555, 561, 316 P.3d 696 (2013).K.S.A. 22–3202(1) allows two or more crimes to be charged in the same complaint if: (1) the charges are of "the same or similar character"; (2) the charges are part of the "same act or transaction"; or (3) the charges result from "two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or plan."

  9. State v. Carter

    466 P.3d 1180 (Kan. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    We review this decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hurd , 298 Kan. 555, 561, 316 P.3d 696 (2013). Finally, if an error occurred in the preceding steps, we determine whether the error resulted in prejudice—that is, whether the error affected a party's substantial rights.

  10. State v. Ross

    125,604 (Kan. Ct. App. Jun. 14, 2024)

    Because joinder was improper, this court's analysis moves to whether the joinder so prejudiced Ross as to demand reversal. The State bears the burden to show that "'there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome in light of the entire record.'" State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555, 564, 316 P.3d 696 (2013).