Source or Prior Law:

21-970, 21-971.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"The Kansas Stalking Law: A 'Credible Threat' to Victims. A Critique of the Kansas Stalking Law and Proposed Legislation," Callie Anderson Marks, 36 W.L.J. 468 (1997).

"There's (Almost) No Place Like Home: Kansas Remains in the Minority on Protecting Animals from Cruelty," Kara Gerwin, 15 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 1, 124 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Failure to include statement of waiver of counsel under K.S.A. 22-3426(a) held reversible error. State v. Andrews, 5 Kan. App. 2d 678, 623 P.2d 534.

2. Discussed; intent to harass is element of harassment by telephone. State v. Thompson, 237 Kan. 562, 568, 701 P.2d 694 (1985).

3. Cited; evidence obtained from computer-generated "phone trap" as admissible business records under K.S.A. 60-460 examined. State v. Estill, 13 Kan. App. 2d 111, 764 P.2d 455 (1988).

4. Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge constitutionality of Kansas telephone harrassment statute examined. Phelps v. Hamilton, 840 F. Supp. 1442, 1459 (1993).

5. Cited; whether K.S.A. 65-2803 requires proof of criminal intent to show violation examined on question reserved by prosection. State v. Mountjoy, 257 Kan. 163, 173, 891 P.2d 376 (1995).

6. Requires proof of specific intent; specific intent distinguished from general intent. State v. Esher, 22 Kan. App. 2d 779, 783, 922 P.2d 1123 (1996).

7. Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge section based on failure to satisfy injury-in-fact requirement. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 1309, 1314, 1325 (1997).

8. In case involving use of telephone to make criminal threat and harassment by telephone, caller ID information properly admitted. State v. Schuette, 273 Kan. 593, 44 P.3d 459 (2002).

9. Erroneous admission of evidence is subject to the harmless error rule. State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 65, 159 P.3d 985 (2007).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov