Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ricky Hollins was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder after an altercation with S.D. on October 21, 2020, resulted in S.D.'s death. Hollins intended to meet S.D. for a paid sexual encounter, but the situation escalated. The jury acquitted Hollins of a misdemeanor charge of buying sexual relations. Hollins was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence and timely appealed, raising three issues.The Sedgwick District Court received a formal question from the jury during deliberations, along with informal concerns from two jurors about another juror's refusal to engage in group discussions. The district court judge, after consulting with counsel, reminded the jury of their duty to deliberate, despite Hollins' counsel's objections that this could create a coercive power imbalance.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Hollins argued that the district court's statement to the jury constituted "judicial comment error," but the court determined it was a jury instruction and reviewed it as such. The court found the instruction legally appropriate, noting it was similar to the Pattern Jury Instruction for deadlocked juries and did not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict.Hollins also challenged the premeditation instruction, which included language from State v. Bernhardt and State v. Stanley. The court found the instruction factually appropriate, given the evidence of a struggle between Hollins and S.D. Lastly, Hollins claimed cumulative error denied him a fair trial, but the court found no errors in the trial proceedings.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the jury instruction to engage in discussion was not legally erroneous, the premeditation instruction was factually appropriate, and there was no cumulative error. View "State v. Hollins " on Justia Law

Ronald Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard 50 sentence. Over the years, he has filed multiple actions challenging his conviction and sentence. In January 2023, Johnson filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the Wyandotte District Court denied without a hearing. Johnson then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. He subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed Johnson's claims that his sentence was illegal due to various clerical errors in the sentencing journal entry, including incorrect information about the sentencing judge, the plea, the date of sentencing, the criminal history classification, the presumptive sentencing range, and the statutory authority for his conviction. Johnson also argued that the sentencing judge should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest.The Kansas Supreme Court found that most of Johnson's claims involved clerical errors that could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. However, the court agreed with Johnson that the district court improperly imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for his off-grid crime of first-degree premeditated murder, which should have been subject to life parole instead. The court vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision and remanded the case with directions to issue a new journal entry of sentencing consistent with its opinion, including the imposition of lifetime parole.The court did not address Johnson's claim regarding the alleged conflict of interest, as it was not appropriate for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court's decision rendered Johnson's motion to reconsider moot. The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part and remanded the case with directions. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law

Austin Properties, LLC, submitted an application to the Shawnee City Council to build a multi-unit residential complex. The city council denied the application, leading Austin Properties to petition the district court to reverse the denial. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Austin Properties then appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the City had followed the necessary procedures under the Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) § 17.92.030. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, but based its reasoning on K.S.A. 12-757, a Kansas statute that dictates similar procedures for zoning amendments. Both courts found that the City had complied with the required procedures.The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the case and determined that both the SMC and K.S.A. 12-757 were applicable. The Court found that the City failed to comply with K.S.A. 12-757(d) when it did not vote on denial or return the application to the planning commission with an explanation after failing to approve the application with a 3/4 majority vote, as required by K.S.A. 12-757(f) due to a valid protest petition. The Court held that the procedures in K.S.A. 12-757(d) are still applicable even in the face of a valid protest petition under K.S.A. 12-757(f).The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the district court. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to rule in favor of Austin Properties and return the application to the City for action consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Austin Properties v. City of Shawnee " on Justia Law

The appellant, Casinroyial Donje Caszarone Collins, pled guilty to aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and aggravated battery. He was sentenced to probation with a controlling 161-month sentence. After violating his probation, Collins' probation was revoked, and the underlying sentence was imposed. Collins' counsel filed a notice of appeal three days past the statutory deadline, and Collins argued that his failure to appeal within the deadline should be excused based on an exception outlined in State v. Ortiz.The Sedgwick District Court held an Ortiz hearing and found that Collins was informed of his right to appeal and the timeline to file an appeal by his attorney, but not by the court. The court also found that Collins initially told his attorney he did not want to appeal but later changed his mind after the deadline had passed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Collins' claim under the first Ortiz exception was unpreserved and that he failed to show the third Ortiz exception applied.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that both the district court and the Court of Appeals misapplied the Patton framework when evaluating Collins' claim under the first Ortiz exception. The Supreme Court held that the State failed to prove Collins had actual knowledge of his right to appointed appellate counsel. The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether Collins would have appealed had he been properly advised of his appellate rights, based on the evidence from the original Ortiz hearing.The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions regarding the third Ortiz exception, finding that Collins' attorney did not perform deficiently by failing to file a timely appeal, as Collins initially instructed his attorney not to appeal. The case was remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "State v. Collins " on Justia Law

Cathy L. Stroud sued Ozark National Life Insurance Company and its agent, Stephen Guinn, for negligent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty after her husband, Alan Stroud, converted his term life insurance policy to a whole life policy, reducing the death benefit. Cathy claimed that Guinn's advice led to the conversion, which was against their best interests. Alan had a 20-year term life insurance policy with a $60,000 death benefit, which he converted to a whole life policy with a $30,000 death benefit shortly before his death.The Sedgwick District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Ozark and Guinn, concluding that Cathy failed to establish a fiduciary duty and that Guinn did not supply false information. Cathy appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, agreeing that Cathy did not present sufficient evidence to establish a fiduciary duty or negligent misrepresentation.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Cathy failed to establish a fiduciary relationship because there was no evidence that Guinn consciously assumed fiduciary duties. The court also held that Cathy did not present evidence of an affirmative misrepresentation by Guinn, as required for a negligent misrepresentation claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552. The court noted that Cathy's claim was more akin to fraud by silence, which was not pleaded or argued.The Kansas Supreme Court concluded that summary judgment was appropriate because Cathy did not establish genuine issues of material fact for trial on her claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Cathy's motion to amend her petition to add a claim for punitive damages. View "Stroud v. Ozark Nat'l Life Ins. Co. " on Justia Law

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