Printable Format

Previous | Next

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).

"2002 Legislative Wrap Up," Paul T. Davis, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 15 (2002).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge constitutionality of Kansas anti-stalking statute examined. Phelps v. Hamilton, 840 F. Supp. 1442, 1459 (1993).

2. Dismissal of stalking charges where section declared unconstitutional upheld. State v. Wright, 259 Kan. 117, 123, 911 P.2d 166 (1996).

3. Statute held unconstitutionally vague because of failure to convey a sufficient warning of conduct proscribed. State v. Bryan, 259 Kan. 143, 144, 149, 910 P.2d 212 (1996).

4. Evidence that defendant followed victim sufficient to convict for stalking; followed defined. State v. Zhu, 21 Kan. App. 2d 914, 908 P.2d 1345 (1996).

5. 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).

6. 1995 amendments to statute creating crime of stalking held constitutionally valid; vagueness, repeated pattern, apparent ability, legitimate purpose discussed. State v. Rucker, 267 Kan. 816, 832, 837, 987 P.2d 1080 (1999).

7. Stalking conviction affirmed; defendant can't use his constitutional rights to invade rights of others. State v. Whitesell, 270 Kan. 259, 13 P.3d 887 (2000).

8. In preparing probable cause affidavit prosecutor owes specific duty only to court, and if prosecutor's action is objectively reasonable it is entitled to qualified immunity. McCormick v. Board of Shawnee County Comm'rs, 272 Kan. 627, 35 P.3d 815 (2001).

9. Trial court can modify terms of defendant's probation while conviction is on appeal. State v. Whitesell, 29 Kan. App. 2d 905, 33 P.3d 865 (2001).

10. Defendant challenges stalking as an aggravating circumstance in imposing hard 50-year sentence. State v. Johnson, 284 Kan. 18, 25, 159 P.3d 161 (2007).

11. K.S.A. 21-3435 is a specific intent crime and is not vague. State v. Richardson, 289 Kan. 118, 209 P.3d 696 (2009).

12. Deviation from recommended term of probation under K.S.A. 21-4611 requires court to state on record substantial and compelling reasons. State v. Schad, 41 Kan. App. 2d 805, 206 P.3d 22 (2009).

13. State must prove perpetrator sent or transmitted a communication and the victim received the communication to prove an "act of communication." State v. Kendall, 300 Kan. 515, 520, 331 P.3d 763 (2014).