Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brenda Zaragoza fell in the parking lot of a Johnson County public library, resulting in serious injuries. She sued the Johnson County Board of Commissioners, alleging negligence for failing to mitigate the presence of a storm drain and warn of the change in elevation between the curb and the parking surface. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, citing recreational use immunity under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA), which bars negligence claims arising from the use of public property intended for recreational purposes unless gross and wanton negligence is involved. The court also denied Zaragoza's motion to amend her petition to add a claim of gross and wanton negligence.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the library's recreational use immunity applied and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Zaragoza's untimely motion to amend her petition. Zaragoza then petitioned for review, raising both issues. After the petition was granted, she filed a supplemental brief raising a new constitutional argument, which was not considered because it was not presented in her petition for review or before the lower courts.The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions. The court declined to consider Zaragoza's unpreserved constitutional challenge. It affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, agreeing that the library's parking lot fell under the recreational use immunity provision of the KTCA. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of Zaragoza's motion to amend her petition, finding no evidence of gross and wanton negligence by the County. The court concluded that the library is public property intended for recreational purposes and that the parking lot is integral to its function, thus qualifying for immunity under the KTCA. View "Zaragoza v. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs " on Justia Law

A man was convicted of capital murder for the deaths of his girlfriend and her unborn child. The case against him was largely circumstantial. He reported finding the victim shot in her home, cooperated with police, and provided an account of his whereabouts, supported by his grandmother. The investigation included analysis of surveillance footage, U-Haul rental records, cell phone data, and forensic evidence, but no direct evidence placed him at the scene. The prosecution’s theory relied on the timing and mileage of a rented U-Haul, similarities between shell casings found at the crime scene and at a friend’s house, and the defendant’s purchase of a firearm and ammunition. The defense pointed to gaps in the evidence, alternative suspects, and the lack of direct forensic links.The Johnson District Court admitted some of the defendant’s statements to police, excluded certain ballistics testimony, and barred evidence of the victim’s past fears of an ex-boyfriend. After a three-week trial, a jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecutor repeatedly violated the court’s order in limine by discussing excluded ballistics evidence and improperly asserted as fact that disputed evidence was undisputed, among other claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas found multiple instances of prosecutorial error, including repeated violations of the order in limine and improper statements during closing argument that conveyed the prosecutor’s opinion on disputed facts. The court held that these errors were not harmless, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the meaningful gaps in the State’s case. Applying the constitutional harmlessness standard, the court concluded there was a reasonable possibility the errors contributed to the verdict. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Wash " on Justia Law

Jason W. Phipps pled no contest to two felonies and two misdemeanors in 2022. His presentence investigation report calculated a criminal history score of B, which he contested, arguing that his 2010 conviction for criminal threat should not be counted due to a ruling in State v. Boettger that struck down reckless criminal threat as unconstitutional. The district court used the modified categorical approach and concluded that Phipps' conviction was for the intentional version of criminal threat, thus maintaining the B score for sentencing.The Kansas Court of Appeals reviewed the case while the United States Supreme Court issued Counterman v. Colorado, which held that a reckless mens rea is sufficient for a criminal threat conviction. The Court of Appeals determined that Counterman overruled Boettger, making it irrelevant whether Phipps' conviction was for reckless or intentional criminal threat, and affirmed his sentence.The Kansas Supreme Court granted Phipps' petition for review. During the review, Phipps completed his sentence, leading the court to question whether the case was moot. After further briefing, the court concluded that Phipps' release rendered the issues moot and overruled the precedent set in State v. Roat, which allowed for review of moot issues under certain exceptions. The court held that once an issue is determined to be moot, jurisdiction is extinguished, and no prudential exceptions apply. Consequently, Phipps' appeal was dismissed as moot, and the court did not address the merits of the Counterman decision. View "State v. Phipps " on Justia Law

Brian Stubbs was convicted of criminal use of a weapon and interference with law enforcement after an incident where he stabbed Edward McCutcheon with a large kitchen knife. Stubbs arrived uninvited at McCutcheon's apartment, leading to a fight. McCutcheon was seriously injured, and Stubbs fled the scene. Police pursued Stubbs, who ignored commands to stop, leading to his arrest.The Douglas District Court convicted Stubbs of criminal use of a weapon and interference with law enforcement. Stubbs appealed, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutionally vague and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for interference with law enforcement. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Stubbs lacked standing to challenge the statute's vagueness because he did not show it was vague as applied to his conduct.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Stubbs had standing to bring an arbitrary-enforcement challenge to the statute. The court explained that such challenges are inherently facial because they dispute the legislature's authority to enact the statute at all. The court found that Stubbs' conviction under the allegedly void statute presented a concrete injury, satisfying the standing requirements.On the merits, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the statute's prohibition on possessing a "dangerous knife" with intent to use it "unlawfully against another" provided adequate enforcement guidelines. The court concluded that the statute did not invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Stubbs' conviction for interference with law enforcement, as the jury could reasonably conclude that Stubbs knowingly obstructed the officer's duties. The court affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. Stubbs " on Justia Law

Dary Jene Green shot and killed Angela Gatlin as she was getting out of his car in Kansas City, Kansas. Green waived his right to counsel before the preliminary hearing and represented himself through pretrial proceedings and trial. After a jury convicted him of premeditated first-degree murder, the district court briefly appointed counsel, but Green opted to resume self-representation before sentencing. The district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 50 years.The Wyandotte District Court found Green guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. Green appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, the statute's vagueness, the district court's error in requiring evidence of a witness's unavailability, and the lack of a second waiver colloquy for self-representation at sentencing. The district court had denied Green's motions to dismiss charges due to an allegedly illegal arrest and ruled that his arrest was lawful. The court also addressed Green's Fifth Amendment claim, finding no interrogation occurred at the time of his arrest.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support Green's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, noting the use of a deadly weapon, lack of provocation, and Green's conduct before and after the killing. The court also found that the premeditated first-degree murder statute was not unconstitutionally vague, as the components of premeditation (time and consideration) provided explicit standards to prevent arbitrary enforcement. Additionally, the court ruled that the district court did not err in excluding the preliminary hearing testimony of an allegedly unavailable witness, as Green failed to present evidence of the witness's unavailability. Finally, the court held that Green knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel at sentencing, as the brief appointment of counsel did not substantially change the circumstances requiring a new waiver. View "State v. Green " on Justia Law

Terry Eugene Ross Jr. was charged with multiple crimes, including domestic violence against his wife A.R., sexual abuse of his stepdaughters H.L. and D.L., and violations of protection orders. The incidents occurred between January and August 2019, with Ross allegedly exerting control and committing acts of violence and sexual abuse within the household. The State of Kansas consolidated five separate cases against Ross for trial, arguing that the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan to dominate and control the women in his household.The Sedgwick District Court granted the State's motion to consolidate the cases, finding that the crimes were of the same or similar character and part of a common scheme or plan. The court also ruled that the probative value of consolidating the cases outweighed any potential prejudice to Ross. Ross was convicted on most charges, but acquitted on a few, including aggravated assault and unlawful discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences plus additional time for other charges.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed Ross' convictions, finding errors in the district court's decision to consolidate the cases and identifying prosecutorial error. The panel also concluded that the jury's convictions on two alternatively charged counts warranted reversal. The State petitioned for review, and Ross conditionally cross-petitioned.The Kansas Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in consolidating the cases, as the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the opening statements and concluded that Ross failed to preserve a challenge to the inadvertent publication of an unredacted 911 call. The cumulative error doctrine did not apply as no errors were found. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, except for the two convictions on counts two and three of 19-CR-2036, which were left undisturbed and remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Ross " on Justia Law

Mika Lee Thille was convicted of reckless second-degree murder after an incident at Justin Willingham's house. Thille, along with three companions, went to the house to confront his brother Max, who was using heroin there and had allegedly stolen handbags from one of the companions, Valerie Vogel. Upon arrival, a confrontation ensued between Thille and Willingham, during which Willingham was shot and killed. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the events, with some claiming Thille fired the shots and others suggesting Willingham had a gun and fired first.The Saline District Court charged Thille with first-degree premeditated and felony murder, among other charges. The jury convicted him of reckless second-degree murder but acquitted him of the other charges. Thille appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not providing jury instructions for voluntary manslaughter under sudden quarrel and imperfect self-defense theories, as well as for involuntary manslaughter.The Kansas Court of Appeals upheld the district court's decision, finding that the voluntary manslaughter instructions were not factually appropriate. The court reasoned that there was no evidence of sufficient provocation or an honest belief that lethal force was necessary. The panel also held that while an involuntary manslaughter instruction was factually appropriate, the district court's failure to give it was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court agreed that the voluntary manslaughter instructions were not factually appropriate due to a lack of sufficient provocation and no evidence of an honest belief in the necessity of lethal force. The court also found that the failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter was not clear error, as the evidence strongly supported the jury's conclusion of reckless second-degree murder. View "State v. Thille " on Justia Law

Quortez Brown and his cousin broke into Otis Bolden's apartment, shot and killed Bolden, and threatened Ashley Green with a gun. A jury convicted Brown of first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder as a lesser-included offense, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The district court judge sentenced Brown to 20-years-to-life imprisonment for felony murder, 34 months for aggravated burglary, and 12 months for aggravated assault. The judge also pronounced that Brown was subject to "postrelease supervision duration of life," although the journal entry of judgment ordered parole rather than postrelease supervision.Brown appealed his convictions and sentences, and the Kansas Supreme Court rejected most of his arguments but remanded the case for further action on two issues. On remand, the district judge held an evidentiary hearing and determined that Brown failed to establish a conflict with his attorney. The judge also corrected the severity level of Brown's second-degree murder conviction. Brown appealed again, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences.In 2023, Brown filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was unconstitutionally imposed by a judge instead of a jury. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the illegal sentencing statute does not provide a procedural avenue for considering constitutional claims. Brown appealed, renewing his constitutional argument and raising two new arguments: that the district judge should have considered his motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 and that his sentence was illegal because it imposed postrelease supervision instead of parole.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that a sentence that does not conform to constitutional requirements does not fit within the limited, narrow statutory definition of an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504(c). The court also rejected Brown's argument that the judge erred in failing to consider his motion under K.S.A. 60-1507, as Brown consistently argued for relief under the illegal sentence statute. However, the court vacated the sentencing judge's pronouncement of postrelease supervision, as it was contrary to K.S.A. 22-3717(b)(2), and concluded that remand was not necessary because the journal entry of judgment complied with the statute. View "State v. Brown " on Justia Law

Two Wichita police officers stopped Gina Wilson after observing her fail to signal properly. Wilson admitted her license was suspended and refused consent to search her vehicle. Officers called for a K-9 unit, which arrived nine minutes later. The dog, Oden, indicated the presence of drugs, leading officers to search the car and find 30 oxycodone pills. Wilson was arrested and charged with possession of an opiate and driving while suspended.Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Sedgwick District Court denied the motion, finding no constitutional violation as the stop was not meaningfully extended. A jury convicted Wilson. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the dog sniff did not extend the stop's duration and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that a drug dog's sniff of a vehicle's exterior is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since Wilson's car was legally parked and she admitted to driving with a suspended license, the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the dog's alert. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding the search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted. View "State v. Wilson " on Justia Law

Ronald Johnson, serving a life sentence for a 2003 premeditated murder conviction, filed a motion in 2023 for postconviction DNA testing. Johnson was convicted of killing Dorothy Griffin, with evidence including a blood-stained Adidas jacket found in his sister's washing machine. Johnson's motion requested retesting of various items, including the washing machine hose, car parts, and the Adidas jacket, alleging that updated technology could prove his innocence.The Wyandotte District Court denied Johnson's motion. The State argued that Johnson failed to specify biological material in its possession for testing and that none of the items Johnson wanted tested were in law enforcement's custody. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, where Johnson testified and clarified his requests. The court found that Johnson did not prove the State had the items he wanted tested and denied his motion.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Johnson's petition sufficiently stated a claim for testing only the washing machine hose, as it alleged the presence of blood. However, the petition was insufficient for other items, as it did not allege the presence of biological material. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Johnson failed to prove the State had the washing machine hose in its possession. Johnson's arguments for remand and due process violations were unpreserved and unsupported. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision denying Johnson's petition for postconviction DNA testing. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law