kansas appellate practice handbook - Kansas Judicial Branch

Appellate Jurisdiction 5-13
Department of Corrections); State v. Chastain, 265 Kan. 16, 22, 960 P.2d
756 (1998) (whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence
of horizontal gaze nystagmus testing); State v. Roderick, 259 Kan. 107,
109, 911 P.2d 159 (1996) (interpretation of Kansas sentencing guidelines
provisions); City of Overland Park v. Cunningham, 253 Kan. 765, 766, 861 P.2d
1316 (1993) (whether an objection for “lack of foundation” is sufficient
when a request for a more specific objection is made); State v. Toler, 41
Kan. App. 2d 896, 899-900, 206 P.3d 548 (2009) (whether a person may
be found guilty of criminal possession of a firearm on school property
even when school is not in session given the number of school districts in
Kansas and the legislature’s intent to regulate the presence of firearms on
school property); State v. Moffit, 38 Kan. App. 2d 414, 166 P.3d 435 (2007)
(question of whether statute, which provides that any person who engages
in the unlawful manufacturing or attempting to unlawfully manufacture
any controlled substance “shall not be subject to statutory provisions for
suspended sentence, community work service, or probation,” prohibits
a sentencing court from granting probation to a defendant convicted of
conspiracy to unlawfully manufacture methamphetamine); State v. Johnson,
32 Kan. App. 2d 619, 86 P.3d 551 (2004) (whether it was misconduct
for any attorney, prosecutor or defense, to call witnesses “liars” when
such statements were not supported by evidence); and State v. Kralik, 32
Kan. App. 2d 182, 80 P.3d 1175 (2003) (construing ambiguous language
relating to prior DUI convictions in a journal entry of judgment).
All that is necessary for the State to reserve a question for appeal is to
make a proper objection or exception at the time a judgment is entered by
the district court, laying the same foundation for appeal that a defendant
is required to lay. State v. Tremble, 279 Kan. 391, 393–94, 109 P.3d 1188
(2005). “In so doing, the State must lodge proper and timely objections,
advise the trial court of the basis for the objections, and properly perfect
the appeal.” State v. G.W.A., 258 Kan. 703, Syl. 2, 906 P.2d 657 (1995).
See also State v. Hurla, 274 Kan. 725, 727-28, 56 P.3d 252 (2002); City of
Overland Park v. Cunningham, 253 Kan. 765, Syl. 2, 861 P.2d 1316 (1993).
No more is required from the State than from a defendant to preserve an
issue for appellate review. State v. Pottoroff, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1161, Syl. 2,
96 P.3d 280 (2004). “Although the better practice to preserve a question
for appeal is for the State to object or take exception after the court’s ruling,
an argument presented by the State prior to the ruling may be adequate
to preserve the question for jurisdictional purposes.” Pottoroff, 32 Kan.
2013