Category: Kansas Criminal Procedure Survey

Para, Para, Para, Para, Paraphernalia: Single or Plural under Kansas Law?

Brooke Flucke, Staff Editor
Kansas Supreme Court interprets “drug paraphernalia” in K.S.A. § 21-5709(b) as plural so that there can only be a single unit of prosecution based on defendant’s intent for possession.

You’re either in or you’re out! K.S.A. § 60-455(g) is an Exhaustive List and Limits Propensity Evidence

Hailey Reed, Staff Editor
The Kansas Court of Appeals held K.S.A. § 60-455(g)’s definition of “act or offense of sexual misconduct” is exhaustive.  Therefore evidence of prior acts or offenses of sexual misconduct must meet this definition to be admissible under subsection (d).

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due: Defendants are Entitled to All Time Served on Concurrent Sentences for Consolidated Cases

Amanda McElfresh, Staff Editor

The Kansas Court of Appeals interpreted Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6615(a) to hold a defendant is entitled to jail time credit for all the time served on consolidated cases with a concurrent sentence when the record reflects the defendant was in pre-trial custody on both cases.

Every Breath(alyzer) You Take…Ask for an Attorney

Drew Elizabeth Davis, Staff Editor

Kansas Court of Appeals holds and officer must honor an individual’s request for counsel before the breathalyzer test is administered. If the officer disregards the request, the breathalyzer results must be suppressed at trial.

Admissibility of Breath Tests: Must an Intoxilyzer 9000 Operator Check a Subject’s Mouth?

Hayley Koontz, Staff Editor

The Kansas Court of Appeals affirms updated regulations do not require the breath test operator to check a the subjects mouth for the breath test to be admissible as evidence.

PIK Your Poison: Can the District Court Change Statutory PIK Instructions?

Brooke Flucke, Staff Editor

Kansas Supreme Court reverses Kansas Court of Appeals holding Pattern Jury Instructions may be amended even if they track the statutory language.

Direct or Collateral? The District Court’s Duty to Establish a Knowingly Made Plea

Hailey Reed, Staff Editor

Kansas Court of Appeals holds the district court is not required to inform a defendant that they will lose the right to vote or possess a firearm when they enter a nolo contendere plea to a felony.

An Insufficient Proffer: Polygraph Evidence Excluded to the Defendant’s Detriment

Ryan Kielczewski, Staff Editor

District court did not err by excluding evidence of a polygraph examination because Defendant failed to proffer evidence that the examination was coercive.

“Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace”: Appellate Advocacy Basics in the World of Criminal Procedure

Defendant’s constitutional claims abandoned because he “failed to adequately brief” the issues.

Reaching Conviction by Trial and Error: Amending Grand Jury Indictments

Kansas Supreme Court finds Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3015 does not apply to amended indictments from a grand jury.

The Kansas Criminal Procedure Survey provides valuable insight into Kansas criminal procedure to Kansas practitioners. The University of Kansas Law Review publishes updates to the survey on the Kansas Criminal Procedure Blog, the online home for the survey. The Criminal Procedure Survey is a long-standing tradition of the KU School of Law and the Law Review.

We are proud to adapt the Criminal Procedure Survey into a new format that will provide timely updates to Kansas practitioners about new criminal law changes in Kansas and the 10th Circuit.