Supreme Court of Kansas· 11/2/2007

State v. Sappington

Citations

169 P.3d 1107
285 Kan. 176
2007 Kan. LEXIS 648

How courts have described this case

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

finding misconduct, but not gross and flagrant, where prosecutor suggested to jury it may convict if it believed it was reasonable that the defendant committed the crime
stating the test for gross and flagrant misconduct is whether it prejudiced the jury against the defendant, citing State v. Elnicki, 279 Kan. 47, 65, 105 P.3d 1222 [2005]
party alleging trial error has the burden to designate a record affirmatively showing prejudicial error
standard of review of relevance or prejudicial effect of photographs is abuse of discretion
A defendant possesses the burden to designate a record that affirmatively shows prejudicial error. Without such a record, an appellate court presumes the action of the trial court was proper.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nuss, Davis, Greene

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

26 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 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.