Source or Prior Law:

21-601, 21-602, 21-603, 21-606, 21-607, 21-608, 21-609, 21-610, 21-611, 21-612, 21-613, 21-614, 21-615, 21-616, 21-617, 21-618, 21-619, 21-620, 21-621, 21-622, 21-625, 21-626, 21-627, 21-628, 21-629, 21-630, 21-631, 21-637.

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).

"2001 Legislative Wrap Up," Paul T. Davis, 70 J.K.B.A. No. 7, 14 (2001).

"'Notarize This': The Notary's and the Lawyer's Liability for Forged Signatures," J. Nick Badgerow, 73 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 18, 22 (2004).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Conviction hereunder; sentencing under habitual criminal act (K.S.A. 21-4504) not cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Huesing, 211 Kan. 610, 506 P.2d 1140.

2. Conviction hereunder; sentenced as habitual criminal; record reviewed; jury function stated; punishment upheld. State v. Collins, 214 Kan. 247, 519 P.2d 1396.

3. Appeal from conviction hereunder; failure to allege intent to defraud in information error. State v. Giddings, 216 Kan. 14, 15, 18, 19, 531 P.2d 445.

4. Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction hereunder; instructions and rulings upheld. State v. Woods, 218 Kan. 163, 542 P.2d 319.

5. Conviction upheld; admission of rebuttal evidence upheld; evidence sufficient. State v. Blue, 221 Kan. 185, 558 P.2d 136.

6. Record reviewed on appeal from conviction hereunder and of other crimes; no error. State v. Howard, 224 Kan. 208, 579 P.2d 702.

7. Appeal from pre-trial order denying motion for discharge on grounds of double jeopardy dismissed; order not appealable. State v. Fisher, 2 Kan. App. 2d 353, 579 P.2d 167.

8. Conviction hereunder; statute held sufficiently definite and certain as to conduct proscribed; not violative of due process rights. State v. Norris, 226 Kan. 90, 92, 93, 95, 595 P.2d 1110.

9. Stop of defendant's car under K.S.A. 22-2402 held justified by reasonable suspicion. State v. Hayes, 3 Kan. App. 2d 517, 519, 597 P.2d 268.

10. Defense continuance, sufficiency of evidence and hearsay testimony on intent of deceased (K.S.A. 60-460(d)(3)) discussed. State v. Garner, 237 Kan. 227, 699 P.2d 468 (1985).

11. Multiplicitous charges, hearsay evidence, instructions, habitual criminal act, evidence, restitution with imprisonment examined. State v. Hicks, 11 Kan. App. 2d 76, 714 P.2d 105 (1986).

12. Cited; statute prohibiting making of false writing (K.S.A. 21-3711) not unconstitutionally vague and indefinite. State v. Ward, 11 Kan. App. 2d 147, 148, 716 P.2d 594 (1986).

13. Unreasonable delay in serving warrant computed in determining if prosecution barred by statute of limitations (K.S.A. 21-3106). State v. Washington, 12 Kan. App. 2d 634, 636, 752 P.2d 1084 (1988).

14. Cited; presumption in favor of probation (K.S.A. 21-4606a) examined where first convictions are Class E felonies. State v. Knabe, 243 Kan. 538, 757 P.2d 308 (1988).

15. Denial of request to discharge court-appointed attorney, evidence of prior convictions examined. State v. Saeger, 13 Kan. App. 2d 723, 779 P.2d 37 (1989).

16. Cellmate's testimony about defendant's claimed privileged information examined. State v. Spears, 246 Kan. 283, 788 P.2d 261 (1990).

17. False writing made to appear as produced by another covered herein; other false writings covered in K.S.A. 21-3711. State v. Rios, 246 Kan. 517, 530, 792 P.2d 1065 (1990).

18. Sufficiency of information in alleging essential elements of crime, reimbursement of expenses as condition of probation, cross-examination of expert witness examined. State v. Crawford, 248 Kan. 42, 45, 804 P.2d 1385 (1991).

19. Admissibility of computer printout as exception to hearsay rule (K.S.A. 60-460(m)), requirements for laying foundation for admission examined. State v. Brown, 15 Kan. App. 2d 465, 466, 809 P.2d 559 (1991).

20. Crime of delivery of forged instrument proved by proof of theft by deception. State v. Perry, 16 Kan. App. 2d 150, 153, 823 P.2d 804 (1991).

21. Statute noted where admissibility of acts constituting crimes that have been expunged at issue. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 124, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).

22. Lawyer's convictions of felony theft and forgery constitute grounds for disbarment. In re Jarczyk, 252 Kan. 4, 847 P.2d 190 (1992).

23. Trial court's judgment of not guilty of forgery but guilty of issuing or delivering forged instrument found inconsistent. State v. Meyer, 17 Kan. App. 2d 59, 70, 832 P.2d 357 (1992).

24. Evidence sufficient to prove juvenile is excluded from jurisdiction of juvenile code examined. State v. Shelton, 252 Kan. 319, 324, 845 P.2d 23 (1993).

25. Conviction hereunder affirmed; sufficiency of evidence, appointment of counsel for defendant in post-trial motion, exclusion of black prospective jurors examined. State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 762, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).

26. Whether making a forged instrument and delivering a forged instrument are multiplicitous examined. State v. Utterback, 256 Kan. 340, 341, 886 P.2d 808 (1994).

27. Whether defendant established all elements of burglary in providing factual basis for plea examined. State v. Grant, 19 Kan. App. 2d 686, 697, 875 P.2d 986 (1994).

28. Designation of prior burglaries as person felonies for criminal history purpose does not violate ban against ex post facto laws. State v. Landon, 21 Kan. App. 2d 486, 488, 900 P.2d 254 (1995).

29. 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).

30. Error to instruct jury may presume existence of fictitious person when such was an essential element of crime. State v. Colbert, 26 Kan. App. 2d 177, 181, 987 P.2d 1103 (1999).

31. Defendant should have been charged with forgery not making false information (store clerk prepared merchandise receipt using another clerk's name). State v. Gotti, 273 Kan. 459, 43 P.3d 812 (2002).

32. No Batson violation in prosecution's peremptory challenge of African-American; no Apprendi violation as sentence was a presumptive sentence and Apprendi did not apply. State v. Dean, 273 Kan. 929, 46 P.3d 1130 (2002).

33. Diversion agreement failed to contain mandatory waiver of certain rights; convictions reversed. State v. Moses, 38 Kan. App. 2d 840, 841, 173 P.3d 652 (2008).

34. Conviction hereunder; no double jeopardy violation where defendant convicted of only one forgery count. State v. Auch, 39 Kan. App. 2d 512, 513, 516, 517, 185 P.3d 935 (2008).

35. Cited; defendant sentenced to 45 days imprisonment as condition of probation for third forgery; criminal history score discussed. State v. Luttig, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1095, 1097-1100, 199 P.3d 793 (2009).

36. Minimum fines for forgery mandatory. State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911, 219 P.3d 481 (2009).

37. Defendant's prior convictions, if used for progressive sentencing scheme, cannot be used to calculate criminal history score. State v. Gilley, 290 Kan. 31, 223 P.3d 774 (2010).

38. Defendant's prior convictions, if used for progressive sentencing scheme, cannot be used to calculate criminal history score. State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 223 P.3d 780 (2010).

39. Defendant delivered a check to cash it knowing the check to be fraudulent based on the facts of the case. State v. Foster, 46 Kan. App. 2d 233, 264 P.3d 116 (2011).

40. The phrases "making, altering or endorsing," "issuing or delivering," "made, altered or endorsed," and "issue or deliver" construed. State v. Coleman, 47 Kan. App. 2d 658, 277 P.3d 435 (2012).

41. The phrase "issuing or delivering" does not create alternative means of offering a forged instrument. State v. Foster, 298 Kan. 348, 312 P.3d 364 (2013).