State v. Pope

13 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Kansas State University

    32 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Statev. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 74, 927 P.2d 503 (1997). To "falsify" a record implies intentionality consistent with the crime of making false entries or otherwise tampering with a public record with the intent to deceive, injure or conceal wrongdoing.

  2. State v. Vandervort

    276 Kan. 164 (Kan. 2003)   Cited 105 times
    Holding "the comparable offense" was "the closest approximation" to the out-of-state crime

    Vandervort's assertions of error do not include constitutional claims, but further research uncovered two cases relevant to our consideration of Vandervort's claim. In State v. Pope, 23 Kan. App. 2d 69, 927 P.2d 503 (1996), the Court of Appeals reviewed the merits of the defendant's claim that her prior Missouri juvenile adjudications should not have been included in her criminal history under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act despite defense counsel's failure to object at the sentencing hearing. Both the defendant and her attorney agreed at the hearing that the criminal history shown in the presentence investigation (PSI) report was accurate. On appeal, defendant conceded that she did not object before the sentencing court to the use of the Missouri juvenile adjudications.

  3. State v. Presha

    27 Kan. App. 2d 645 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 15 times
    In Presha, a panel of this court held that Presha's prior juvenile adjudication from Florida was properly included in his criminal history even though the Florida trial court withheld adjudication.

    Nevertheless, such statutes do not prevent Kansas from including the out-of-state juvenile adjudications in a defendant's criminal history score. State v. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 81, 927 P.2d 503 (1996), rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997). Under K.S.A.1999 Supp. 21-4711(f), out-of-state juvenile adjudications are treated as juvenile adjudications in Kansas.

  4. United States v. Love

    Case No. 15-CR-20098-JAR (D. Kan. Sep. 18, 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Id. 927 P.2d 503, 507 (Kan. Ct. App. 1996) (citing State v. Shannon, 905 P.2d 649 (Kan. 1995); State v. Pratt, 876 P.2d 1390 (Kan. 1994)). See id.

  5. Griffin v. Scnurr

    No. 12-3146-SAC (D. Kan. Sep. 26, 2014)

    Intentional second-degree murder is a specific intent crime. State v. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 73 (1996), rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997). Thus in Griffin's case, it was error under state law to use the two aiding and abetting instructions together because it permitted the jury to substitute a "reasonably foreseeable" standard for the specific intent element of the charged offenses, including attempted second-degree intentional murder.

  6. State v. Deal

    293 Kan. 872 (Kan. 2012)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that intentional second-degree murder is a specific intent crime

    Based on this language, this court has recognized that K.S.A. 21–3402(a), the provision relating to intentional second-degree murder, defines a specific intent crime; a defendant must have the specific intent to kill. State v. Hayes, 270 Kan. 535, 543, 17 P.3d 317 (2001); State v. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 73, 927 P.2d 503 (1996), rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997); see Richie v. State, 149 S.W.3d 856, 857 (Tex.App.2004) (“murder is known as a ‘result of conduct offense.’ [Citation omitted.] ... That is, the statute requires the accused to have had a particular mind set ... viz the prohibited result.”).

  7. State v. Fischer

    288 Kan. 470 (Kan. 2009)   Cited 63 times
    Reaffirming Hitt for all juvenile adjudications that were final as of the decision in In re L. M., 286 Kan. 460, 469-70, which gave juveniles a constitutional right to a jury trial

    " an appellate court may review a claim that the sentencing court erroneously included recognition of a prior conviction notwithstanding the defendant's failure to object to his or her criminal history score. K.S.A. 21-4721(e)(2); State v. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 79, 927 P.2d 503 (1996)." 276 Kan. at 851, 80 P.3d 44.

  8. State v. Pennington

    276 Kan. 841 (Kan. 2003)   Cited 23 times
    Discussing cases in which the court held trial courts abused their discretion by admitting unduly gruesome and repetitive photographs; noting "[t]he common theme in these cases is that the photographs graphically displayed the victim's organs after the body was cut open during the autopsy"

    However, an appellate court may review a claim that the sentencing court erroneously included recognition of a prior conviction notwithstanding the defendant's failure to object to his or her criminal history score. K.S.A. 21-4721(e)(2); State v. Pope, 23 Kan. App. 2d 69, 79, 927 P.2d 503 (1996). Pennington relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000).

  9. State v. Hayes

    270 Kan. 535 (Kan. 2001)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that the lower court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial where the juror at issue heard none of the defendant's testimony

    Intentional second-degree murder is a specific intent crime. State v. Pope, 23 Kan. App. 2d 69, 73, 927 P.2d 503 (1996), rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997). Here, the district court found that there was no evidence that Hayes was intoxicated.

  10. State v. Belone

    51 Kan. App. 2d 179 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 46 times

    Reckless second-degree murder requires proof of “extreme indifference to the value of human life.” See State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 135, 119 P.3d 1148 (2005); State v. Pope, 23 Kan.App.2d 69, 77, 927 P.2d 503 (1996), rev. denied 261 Kan. 1088 (1997). By selecting “guilty” on the verdict form for unintentional second-degree murder and “not guilty” for involuntary manslaughter, the jury clearly expressed its finding that Belone's actions were more than merely reckless; to wit: reckless “under circumstances showing extreme indifference to the value of human life.”