Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kimberley S. Younger was convicted of capital murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and theft. She was accused of orchestrating the murders of Alfred and Pauline Carpenter at the Barton County fairgrounds. Younger, along with her coconspirators, was involved in a complex scheme that included manipulating others through fake social media accounts and convincing them of a fictional crime syndicate led by "Frank Zaitchik." The Carpenters were killed, and their bodies were disposed of in Arkansas. Younger was arrested and made several incriminating statements to the police.The Barton District Court conducted a nine-day jury trial, during which Younger was found guilty on all counts. The court sentenced her to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the capital murder charge, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges. Younger appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of her statements to the police, the testimony of a remote witness, and the denial of her motions for mistrial based on comments about her credibility.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed each of Younger's claims. The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the remote testimony of Frank Zaitshik due to COVID-19 concerns, as the trial court made specific findings justifying the necessity of remote testimony. The court also found that Younger's statements to the police were voluntary and that she had reinitiated the interview after invoking her right to counsel. The court determined that the comments about Younger's credibility by witnesses did not warrant a mistrial and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing a key witness to remain in the courtroom.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Younger's convictions but reversed the restitution order in part, finding that the State failed to justify the amount requested for State Farm Insurance. The court also held that the inclusion of court costs in the restitution order was illegal and remanded the case for correction of the judgment relating to restitution. View "State v. Younger " on Justia Law

Clyde James Barnes Jr. was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, criminal threat, and violation of a protective order. The case arose after Barnes, who was on house arrest, tampered with his GPS ankle bracelet and traveled to the residence of his ex-partner, Jessica Leigh Smith. Barnes broke into Smith's home and brutally murdered her with a mattock. The crime was captured on surveillance cameras, and forensic evidence linked Barnes to the scene.The Johnson County District Court found Barnes guilty on all counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 620 months for the murder, plus additional consecutive sentences for the other charges. Barnes appealed, raising several issues, including the constitutionality of the territorial jurisdiction statute under which he was prosecuted for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, claims of prosecutorial error, the admission of graphic photographs, the jury instructions on premeditation, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the tampering conviction.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the tampering charge under K.S.A. 21-5106(b)(3), as the proximate result of Barnes' tampering occurred in Kansas. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the closing arguments, determining that the prosecutor's statements were fair comments on the evidence. The court ruled that the admission of the photographs was not an abuse of discretion, as they were relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The court upheld the premeditation jury instruction, finding it accurately stated the law. Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Barnes' conviction for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment and that cumulative error did not deny him a fair trial. View "State v. Barnes " on Justia Law

Sharmarke Warsame was convicted of two felony counts of identity theft, two misdemeanor counts of theft, and one misdemeanor count of criminal use of a financial card for using stolen credit cards to purchase Target gift cards. The convictions were vacated on direct appeal, and the State dismissed the felony charges after remand. Warsame served 564 days in prison for the vacated and dismissed felony convictions. He then filed a statutory action for wrongful conviction and imprisonment seeking damages, attorney fees, costs, a certificate of innocence, and expungement of all associated convictions.The Johnson District Court denied the State's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that it needed to hear testimony and make findings concerning the alleged facts under which Warsame was convicted. A bench trial followed, and the district court ultimately ruled against Warsame, holding that he had failed to prove his actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.Warsame appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing that the district court incorrectly concluded that he committed felony identity theft against the alleged victims as charged and instructed to the jury. The State cross-appealed the denial of summary judgment, arguing that the actual innocence required under the wrongful conviction statute concerns the statutory elements of the charged crime, not the specific facts alleged in the filings or trial.The Kansas Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that the crime of conviction is defined by statute and is not limited to the specific facts of the charging document. To receive compensation, Warsame was required to prove actual innocence by a preponderance of the evidence under the statutory elements of the charged crime. Warsame failed to meet this burden, as he admitted facts sufficient to prove he intended to defraud some party to receive a benefit. The court affirmed the denial of Warsame's claim. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Warsame " on Justia Law

In 2016, Robert Edward Smith was involved in a home invasion that resulted in the murder of Donna O'Neal. Smith was charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. The case was delayed due to extensive pretrial litigation and the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a mistrial in July 2021. Smith's retrial began in May 2023, where he was ultimately convicted on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially handled the case, where Smith raised several issues, including a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, prosecutorial error, and the right to present a defense. The district court denied Smith's motions, including his motion to dismiss based on the speedy trial claim and his objections to the State's mid-trial amendment of the information.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed multiple issues. The court found that the 21.5-month delay between Smith's mistrial and retrial did not violate his right to a speedy trial, considering the complexity of the case and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and no violation of Smith's right to present a defense regarding the exclusion of third-party evidence and a probation violation warrant.However, the court agreed with Smith that the district court erred in including his 2003 criminal threat conviction in his criminal history score, as the statute under which he was convicted had been declared unconstitutional in State v. Boettger. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Smith's convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without including the 2003 conviction in his criminal history score. View "State v. Smith " on Justia Law

Christopher Adams faced multiple counts of battery for allegedly assaulting two men and his girlfriend, Stephanie Lang, outside a bar. Lang initially identified Adams as the attacker but later claimed she did not remember the incident during a preliminary hearing. Due to her inconsistent statements, the State charged Lang with perjury and interference with law enforcement and warned her of additional perjury charges if she testified similarly at Adams' trial. Lang invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the risk of incrimination in her pending perjury case and potential new perjury charges.The Ellis District Court ruled that Lang could invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege despite the State offering her use and derivative use immunity, which would make her trial testimony and any evidence derived from it inadmissible in her pending perjury case. The court found that the immunity did not protect her from a new perjury charge. A majority panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the immunity was insufficient to protect Lang's Fifth Amendment rights due to the imminent risk of a perjury charge. Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger dissented, arguing that the threat of a future perjury charge cannot be the basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that Lang's Fifth Amendment privilege was extinguished by the State's grant of use and derivative use immunity, which is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment protection. The court further held that the risk of a future perjury charge is not a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. The case was remanded to the district court with directions to compel Lang's testimony under the State's grant of immunity. View "State v. Adams " on Justia Law

Robert Lee Harris Jr. was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder of his wife. On appeal, Harris challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from his locked cell phones. He argued that law enforcement obtained the passcodes to unlock the phones in violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.The Johnson District Court found that Harris voluntarily disclosed the passcodes, knowing the incriminating information they might yield. The court concluded that the initial Miranda warning given to Harris was still effective, and his prior Miranda waiver had not expired when the detective asked him to provide the passcodes. The court also found that the detective's statement about obtaining a court order to compel fingerprint access or the passcodes was not inherently coercive, as the detective had a reasonable basis to believe a court would issue such an order.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's finding that Harris' disclosure of the passcodes was voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the initial Miranda warning and Harris' waiver were still valid at the time of the second interrogation, so a renewed Miranda warning was not necessary. Additionally, the court found that the detective's statement about obtaining a court order was not inherently coercive and that Harris provided the passcodes voluntarily, considering the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Harris' motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the cell phones. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The case involves Patricio Sabas Gomez, who was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred on September 30, 2021, when Danielle Hampton called 911 to report that her boyfriend, Michael Martinez, had been shot at a hotel in Wichita. Martinez was found dead with gunshot wounds, and methamphetamine was discovered in the room. Gomez and Shae Roberts were implicated in a drug deal gone wrong, leading to Martinez's death. Gomez was charged with felony murder, attempted distribution of methamphetamine, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a weapon.The Sedgwick District Court found Gomez guilty of first-degree felony murder and attempted distribution of methamphetamine but acquitted him of attempted aggravated robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 620 months, concurrent with a 78-month term for attempted distribution of methamphetamine and an 8-month term for criminal possession of a weapon. Gomez appealed his convictions, arguing insufficient evidence for the felony-murder conviction and the attempted distribution of methamphetamine, and claimed his sentence for the latter was illegal.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, affirming Gomez's convictions. The court found sufficient evidence to support the felony-murder conviction based on attempted distribution of methamphetamine and attempted aggravated robbery. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for attempted distribution of methamphetamine. However, the court agreed that the 78-month sentence for attempted distribution of methamphetamine was illegal, as it exceeded the statutory maximum. Consequently, the court vacated that portion of Gomez's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. View "State v. Gomez" on Justia Law

Brenton S. Cook fired three shots and killed Dean Endsley in Endsley's Salina residence while attempting to collect on a drug debt. A jury convicted Cook of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Cook to a hard 25 life sentence for premeditated first-degree murder, plus 60 months on the remaining counts. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal.Cook later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his convictions were multiplicitous and violated the double jeopardy clause because insufficient time passed for him to form the required mental state to premeditate murder. He requested a new trial or resentencing. The State responded that Cook's arguments focused on his convictions rather than his sentences and that he failed to address the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. The Saline District Court agreed with the State, noting that Cook did not challenge the legality of his sentence under the statutory definition and characterized his motion as complaining of trial errors that should have been asserted in his direct appeal. The district court also concluded that Cook's claims were barred under res judicata principles.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the district court's decision de novo. The court found that Cook's arguments did not suggest his sentences fell under the statutory definition of an illegal sentence. Cook did not argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction, that the sentence was ambiguous, or that it did not conform to the applicable statutory provisions defining the crime, assigning the punishment, or involving the criminal history classification. The court concluded that Cook's motion did not properly invoke an applicable statutory provision that might afford him relief under the illegal sentence statute, K.S.A. 22-3504. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Cook's motion. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

POM of Kansas, LLC, owns and distributes Dragon's Ascent, an arcade game where players shoot dragons for prizes redeemable for cash. Concerned about the game's legality under Kansas law, POM sought approval from state agencies, which declined to provide a formal opinion. POM proceeded with the game's launch and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act does not apply to Dragon's Ascent, that the game complies with Kansas' criminal gambling statutes, and that those statutes are unconstitutionally vague.The Shawnee District Court dismissed the claims against the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission and the Douglas County District Attorney, ruling that no real controversy existed as neither had investigated the game nor threatened prosecution. The court retained the Kansas Attorney General in the case due to the constitutional challenges raised. The district court later dismissed POM's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ruled against the constitutional challenges on the merits.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that POM lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment about the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act because no defendant suggested the Act applied to Dragon's Ascent. The court also found that POM lacked standing to seek a declaration that Dragon's Ascent is lawful under Kansas criminal gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution or seizure of the devices. Finally, the court concluded that POM lacked standing to raise a constitutional vagueness challenge to the gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of POM's claims regarding the Expanded Lottery Act and the legality of Dragon's Ascent, vacated the ruling on the constitutional vagueness challenge, and remanded the matter for dismissal. View "POM of Kansas v. Kobach" on Justia Law

A prolonged legal battle ensued between divorced paternal grandparents, each seeking to adopt their grandson, E.A. The boy lived with his grandfather for his first six years until 2019, when his grandmother and her husband took him under false pretenses and initiated an adoption proceeding. The grandfather attempted to intervene in the adoption but was denied "party in interest" status. He also filed an unsuccessful paternity case, claiming he was the boy's presumed father under the Kansas Parentage Act. The adoption court awarded the boy to the grandmother and her husband, and three years later, the court reaffirmed its decision, denying the grandfather's motion to intervene.The grandfather appealed both district court rulings. One Court of Appeals panel denied him relief in the parentage case, while another panel reversed the adoption court's decision, allowing the grandfather to present his case as an interested party. The losing sides sought review in each case.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the cases and reversed the parentage panel's decision while affirming the adoption panel's decision. The court held that the grandfather pled sufficient facts to advance a colorable party-in-interest claim in the adoption proceeding and to prosecute his parentage claim. The court emphasized that the grandfather should have been allowed to intervene in the adoption case to address the competing interests adequately.The Kansas Supreme Court remanded the parentage case to the district court to be consolidated with the adoption case, which was also remanded for further proceedings. The adoption decree was vacated, and the case was directed to return to its status as of May 31, 2019, with the understanding that temporary custody may be reconsidered to determine the boy's best interests. View "In re Parentage of E.A." on Justia Law