KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

22-3421. Verdict, procedure. The verdict shall be written, signed by the presiding juror and read by the clerk to the jury, and the inquiry made whether it is the jury's verdict. If any juror disagrees, the jury must be sent out again; but if no disagreement is expressed, and neither party requires the jury to be polled, the verdict is complete and the jury discharged from the case. If the verdict is defective in form only, it may be corrected by the court, with the assent of the jury, before it is discharged.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3421; L. 1984, ch. 112, § 23; July 1.

Source or Prior Law:

62-1501, 62-1502, 62-1503.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Lurching Toward the Light: Alternative Means and Multiple Acts Law in Kansas," Carol A. Beier, 44 W.L.J. 275 (2005).

"Elect or Instruct: Presenting Evidence of Multiple Acts from Threatening Juror Unanimity in Criminal Trials," Scott R. Ediger, 74 J.K.B.A. No. 5, 28 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Special questions may not be submitted to jury in criminal prosecution. State v. Osburn, 211 Kan. 248, 255, 505 P.2d 742.

2. Applied; court corrected defective verdicts by requesting jury to reconsider; guilty verdict upheld. State v. Culbertson, 214 Kan. 884, 887, 522 P.2d 391.

3. Where juror expressed doubt concerning instruction, subsequent statement that he was satisfied with verdict justified court's acceptance of verdict. State v. Panker, 216 Kan. 347, 348, 532 P.2d 1073.

4. No final verdict where hung jury and mistrial declared; jeopardy does not attach to extent subsequent prosecution barred. McKay v. Raines, 405 F. Supp. 363, 365.

5. Conviction hereunder as an aider and abettor affirmed; element of intent inferred from circumstantial evidence; standard of appellate review; abuse of judicial discretion in sentencing. State v. Goering, 225 Kan. 755, 756, 594 P.2d 194.

6. Jury instruction and jury form not requiring unanimous decision nor theory on first degree murder (K.S.A. 21-3401) examined. State v. Hartfield, 245 Kan. 431, 445, 781 P.2d 1050 (1989).

7. Contact between witness and KBI before witness testimony did not violate sequestration order or require mistrial. State v. Johnson, 258 Kan. 475, 491, 905 P.2d 94 (1995).

8. Contention that deliberating juror's dismissal due to belief of case outcome constitutionally improper recognized; verdict must be unanimous. State v. Cheek, 262 Kan. 91, 108, 936 P.2d 749 (1997).

9. Jury finding of alleged overt act in furtherance of conspiracy upheld. State v. Smith, 268 Kan. 222, 230, 993 P.2d 1213 (1999).

10. In seeking to correct defective jury form, court may not suggest a preference or persuade jury toward a possible verdict. State v. Anderson, 33 Kan. App. 2d 607, 106 P.3d 89 (2005).

11. Unanimity instruction not required since case involved multiple items of evidence, not multiple acts. State v. Unruh, 281 Kan. 520, 527, 529, 133 P.3d 35 (2006).

12. Mentioned in opinion discussing multiple acts case requiring jury unanimity on specific criminal acts. State v. Voyles, 284 Kan. 239, 251, 160 P.3d 794 (2007).

13. Failure to give unanimity instruction in multiple acts case clear error. State v. Buckner, 37 Kan. App. 2d 397, 403, 154 P.3d 42 (2007).

14. Criminal defendant has right to a unanimous jury verdict; de novo review of unanimity issues by appellate court. State v. Dayhuff, 37 Kan. App. 2d 779, 784, 158 P.3d 330 (2007).

15. Section contains no "contemporaneous objection" requirement, and right to unanimous jury verdict is statutory. State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760, 768, 175 P.3d 239 (2008).

16. Cited; DUI conviction reversed; court failed to inquire whether verdict was jury's verdict. State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1059, 1061, 1074 to 1081, 198 P.3d 769 (2008).

17. Reversal of verdict mandated when trial court neglected to make required inquiry to the jury. State v. Gray, 45 Kan. App. 2d 522, 249 P.3d 465 (2011).

18. Trial judge failed to follow procedural requirements; deemed harmless error. State v. Dunlap, 46 Kan. App. 2d 924, 266 P.3d 1242 (2011).

19. District court's error in failing to follow the procedural requirements in responding to a jury question held harmless. State v. Womelsdorf, 47 Kan. App. 2d 307, 274 P.3d 662 (2012).

20. Former aiding and abetting statute did not create an alternative means for committing aggravated robbery. State v. Jackson, 49 Kan. App. 2d 116, 305 P.3d 685 (2013).


 | Next

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by KSA
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by Bill
  2024 Valid Section Numbers
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department