Court of Appeals of Kansas· 7/21/2006

State v. Chambers

Citations

36 Kan. App. 2d 228
138 P.3d 405
30 A.L.R. 6th 695
2006 Kan. App. LEXIS 703

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

finding that victim’s purchase of security system following burglary was not compensable, where restitution statute covered “damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime” (quotation omitted)
finding that conviction of burglary was committed for defendant's sexual gratification where defendant broke into residences for the sole purpose of stealing women's lingerie to facilitate masturbation
finding that conviction of burglary was committed for defendant’s sexual gratification where defendant broke into residences for the sole purpose of stealing women’s lingerie to facilitate masturbation
concluding the under a statute authorizing restitution for “damage or loss caused by the defendant’s crime,” the “purchase [of a security system] was an example of ‘tangential costs incurred as a result of a crime,’ not a cost caused by the crime” (citations omitted)
no discernible market value for used personal lingerie stolen from victim’s home
no discernible market value for used personal lingerie stolen from victim's home

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Buser, Larson, Wahl

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.