- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
State v. Williams
263 Kan. 134 (Kan. 1997)3 Citing cases
State v. Oliver
280 Kan. 681 (Kan. 2005) Cited 44 timesHolding psychologist's testimony of the defendant's post-traumatic stress disorder and dependent personality disorder admissible as part of the psychological environment under Crane as bearing on defendant's ability to respond reliably to interrogation, but finding preclusion of testimony harmless error
The district court denied defendant's request, finding that the inclusion of defendant's requested instruction on felony murder eliminated the need to give the lesser included offense instructions. The district court relied on State v. Williams, 263 Kan. 134, Syl. ¶ 1, 947 P.2d 25 (1997), which stated: "If the evidence of the underlying felony [is] strong, no instruction on the lesser included offenses [is] required." Because defendant "requested the instructions, this court must review the matter in a light most favorable to" defendant.
State v. Sandifer
270 Kan. 591 (Kan. 2001) Cited 20 timesState v. Moncla, 262 Kan. 58, 73-74, 936 P.2d 727 (1997). This court discussed in State v. Williams, 263 Kan. 134, 137-38, 947 P.2d 25 (1997), the fact that appellate courts apply a different analysis when determining whether lesser included offense instructions should be given when the crime charged is felony murder. We stated:
State v. Kelley
42 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 5 timesFinding that the district court's ruling on an evidentiary issue at a criminal trial is not a judgment to which the doctrine of acquiescence applies
Furthermore, review of the admission or exclusion of evidence is governed by the harmless error rule. State v. Williams, 263 Kan. 134, Syl. ¶ 3, 947 P.2d 25 (1997). The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."