Opinion ID: 2460345
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Court of Appeals' Standard: Were Substantial Rights Affected?

Text: By an equally circuitous route, we conclude the standard stated by the Court of Appeals also derives from K.S.A. 60-261. Yet, the wording of the standard was different; the Court of Appeals stated that Ward failed to establish that her substantial rights were prejudiced by the error. State v. Ward, No. 99,549, 2009 WL 454947, at  (Kan.App. 2009) (unpublished opinion) (citing State v. Albright, 283 Kan. 418, 425-26, 153 P.3d 497 [2007]). This wording has been used by this court in several recent decisions, including Leaper, 291 Kan. at 96-97, 238 P.3d 266, and State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 283-85, 197 P.3d 337 (2008). Although Leaper, Angelo, Ward, and many other cases using this language do not cite to K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-261, the substantial rights wording echoes the language of that provision, which currently states: Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other error by the court or a party, is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights.  (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-261.