State v. Nunez

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Willis

    557 P.3d 424 (Kan. 2024)

    [16] This court has characterized this form of manslaughter as the "lawful exercise of self-defense, but with excessive force." See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021); State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 976, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012). Under this theory,

  2. State v. Alfaro-Valleda

    502 P.3d 66 (Kan. 2022)   Cited 53 times
    Applying standard to prejudice versus probative analysis

    But we conclude the district court judge did not commit clear error by not giving the instruction because we are not convinced the jury would have reached a different result had the judge given an instruction. See State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 55, 486 P.3d 606 (2021). The evidence about Arita's-Hurtado's state of mind when leaving the New Year's Eve party and the reasons given for having someone move Alfaro-Valleda's truck had de minimis meaning and were unlikely to sway a jury.

  3. State v. Arnold

    125,443 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2024)

    Appellate courts do not reweigh these evidentiary assessments. Accord State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (noting that a district court is not required to make particularized findings on the record when ruling on an immunity motion as long as it is apparent that it used the correct legal framework).

  4. State v. Collins

    125,971 (Kan. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2024)

    This court does not apply the deduction automatically or mechanically, but considers it to be one factor, among many, when analyzing instructional issues for harmlessness." State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 541, 553, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).

  5. State v. Chandler

    126,031 (Kan. Ct. App. May. 31, 2024)

    Chandler relies on decisions discussing the use of excessive force during an otherwise justifiable use of force for support. See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021); State v. James, 309 Kan. 1280, 1304, 443 P.3d 1063 (2019). In Nunez, the defendant claimed he shot the victim-who he believed was trying to rob his house- only after the victim had held the defendant by the neck and was holding a knife to him.

  6. State v. Drake

    125,184 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2024)

    Moreover, we again emphasize that the district court was not required to make particularized findings. See State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021) (confirming that particularized findings are not required when ruling on an immunity motion). Generally, particularized findings are not required when the applicable statue does not call for such findings.

  7. State v. Harrington

    125,022 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2023)

    State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 551, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).

  8. State v. Harpe

    124,732 (Kan. Ct. App. Sep. 15, 2023)

    [Citations omitted.]" State v. Nunez, 313 Kan. 540, 553, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).

  9. Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo

    63 Kan. App. 2d 588 (Kan. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    A jury instruction error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome. State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 550, 486 P.3d 606 (2021).

  10. State v. Trotter

    510 P.3d 1204 (Kan. Ct. App. 2022)

    A trial court is not required to make particularized findings on an immunity motion if it is apparent from the record that the trial court applied the appropriate legal standard in determining probable cause. State v. Nunez , 313 Kan. 540, 548, 486 P.3d 606 (2021). Here, the trial court applied the correct legal standard.