Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2016, Louis Scherzer was fatally shot outside a bar in Kansas City, Kansas. Filiberto B. Espinoza Jr. was linked to the shooting and charged with first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and attempted aggravated robbery. Espinoza admitted to the shooting but claimed self-defense, stating he shot Scherzer when he saw him pulling a firearm. In September 2017, Espinoza pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder and received a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for 25 years. His sentence was affirmed on appeal in April 2020.Espinoza filed a motion to withdraw his plea on January 5, 2021, which the district court did not rule on before he filed a second motion on November 21, 2023. The district court summarily dismissed both motions on December 20, 2023, noting the 2021 motion was timely but failed to establish manifest injustice, and the 2023 motion was untimely and lacked excusable neglect. Espinoza appealed the denial of both motions.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Espinoza's 2023 motion was untimely and did not demonstrate excusable neglect. The court noted that Espinoza was aware of the video footage and toxicology report during the trial, and his claims of ignorance did not constitute excusable neglect. Additionally, the court found no error in the district court's summary denial of the 2021 motion, as the record showed Espinoza was fully informed of his plea's consequences, and his allegations were conclusory without raising substantial issues of fact.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary denial of both motions to withdraw Espinoza's plea. View "State v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

Tirrell Stuart was convicted of felony murder after Emilio Lopez was shot and killed during a marijuana transaction. Stuart, along with friends, initially purchased marijuana from Lopez. Later, Stuart arranged a second purchase for a larger quantity. During this second transaction, Lopez accused Stuart of using fake money and took back the marijuana. Stuart then shot Lopez, who died at the scene. The State charged Stuart with felony murder, using the distribution of marijuana as the underlying felony.The Wyandotte District Court instructed the jury that to convict Stuart of felony murder, they must find that he killed Lopez while committing the distribution of marijuana. The jury found Stuart guilty, and the court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 25 years. Stuart appealed, arguing that the State failed to prove the underlying felony of distribution of marijuana.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on whether the State provided sufficient evidence to prove the distribution of marijuana. The court noted that simply acquiring a controlled substance does not constitute distribution. The court found that the State's evidence only showed Stuart's possession of marijuana but did not demonstrate that he intended to distribute it beyond personal use. The court emphasized that the State's case relied on impermissible inference stacking, which is not sufficient to support a conviction.The Kansas Supreme Court held that the State failed to prove the distribution element necessary for the felony-murder conviction. Consequently, the court reversed Stuart's felony-murder conviction and vacated his sentence, citing insufficient evidence to support the underlying felony of distribution of marijuana. View "State v. Stuart" on Justia Law

The case involves Kimberly S. Younger, who was convicted of capital murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and theft. Younger was implicated as the principal organizer of the murders of Alfred and Pauline Carpenter, who were killed by Michael Fowler and Rusty Frasier, both of whom testified against her. The murders occurred at the Barton County fairgrounds, and the bodies were later disposed of in Arkansas. Younger was arrested in Arkansas, where she made several incriminating statements to the police and to Fowler, which were recorded.The Barton District Court convicted Younger based on the testimonies of her co-conspirators and other evidence. Younger challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of her statements to the police and the testimony of Frank Zaitshik, who testified remotely due to COVID-19 concerns. The trial court allowed Zaitshik's remote testimony, finding it necessary due to the pandemic. The court also admitted Younger's statements made during her interrogation and to Fowler, finding them voluntary and not coerced.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions in part. The court held that allowing Zaitshik to testify remotely did not violate Younger's Confrontation Clause rights, given the pandemic's circumstances. The court also found that Younger's statements to the police and Fowler were voluntary and admissible. However, the court reversed the restitution order in part, finding that the State failed to justify the amount awarded to State Farm Insurance and that the inclusion of court costs in the restitution order was illegal. The case was remanded to correct the restitution judgment. View "State v. Younger" on Justia Law

Kevin and Gretchen Higdon, residents of Missouri, opened a joint bank account in Missouri, which was later held by Equity Bank. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank obtained a judgment against Kevin in Missouri and sought to garnish the Higdons' account in Kansas to satisfy the judgment. The account was listed as "Joint (Right of Survivorship)" under Missouri law, which presumes a tenancy by the entirety for married couples, meaning the account could not be garnished for a judgment against only one spouse.The Johnson County District Court in Kansas denied the Higdons' motion to quash the garnishment, applying Kansas law, which does not recognize tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the account was a joint tenancy, allowing M & I Bank to garnish Kevin's half of the account. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, focusing on the procedural nature of garnishment under Kansas law.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the issue of account ownership was substantive, not procedural. The court applied the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which directs that the law of the state where the property interest was created (Missouri) should govern. Under Missouri law, the account was held as a tenancy by the entirety, and thus, M & I Bank could not garnish it for a judgment against Kevin alone.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case with directions to return the garnished funds to the Higdons, holding that Missouri law applied to the ownership of the account, preventing the garnishment. View "M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon" on Justia Law

The case involves Riley D. Moore, who was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, criminal threat, and domestic battery after a violent altercation with his ex-girlfriend, M.M. During a post-breakup conversation, Moore dragged M.M. into a garage, closed the door, and prevented her from leaving. M.M. managed to escape but was followed by Moore, leading to a physical altercation near the street. M.M. suffered abrasions and pain. The jury found Moore guilty, and he was sentenced to 123 months in prison.The Sedgwick District Court convicted Moore, and he appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of bodily harm and instructional errors. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected his sufficiency argument but reversed the aggravated kidnapping conviction, citing cumulative prejudicial impact from two unpreserved jury instruction errors. The panel did not decide whether each error was clear before aggregating them.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the Court of Appeals erred by not considering whether each unpreserved instructional issue constituted clear error before combining them. The Supreme Court found neither instructional issue to be clearly erroneous. It also held that sufficient evidence supported the bodily harm element of the aggravated kidnapping conviction, as M.M. suffered abrasions and pain from Moore's actions. Additionally, the Supreme Court found the non-PIK instruction defining the taking-or-confining element to be legally and factually appropriate.The Kansas Supreme Court reinstated Moore's aggravated kidnapping conviction and affirmed the district court's judgment on all issues subject to review. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the district court's judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

In 2015, Brennan R. Trass was charged with first-degree felony murder and criminal possession of a firearm after killing Jose Morales during a drug deal. Trass admitted to the shooting, claiming self-defense. Before trial, the district court appointed multiple attorneys for Trass due to conflicts, causing significant delays. Two weeks before the trial in 2019, the court allowed Trass' attorneys to withdraw due to a conflict and ordered Trass to represent himself with standby counsel. During the trial, Trass was removed from the courtroom for refusing to participate, and his standby counsel took over. The jury convicted Trass.The Reno District Court initially handled the case, where Trass faced multiple attorney changes and delays. Trass filed a direct appeal, and the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to determine the feasibility of a retrospective competency hearing. The district court found Trass competent before and during his 2019 trial. Trass raised several issues on appeal, including violations of his right to counsel, speedy trial rights, and sufficiency of evidence.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court violated Trass' Sixth Amendment right to counsel by forcing him to represent himself without proper advisories or warnings about the dangers of self-representation. The court concluded that Trass did not waive his right to counsel knowingly and intelligently, nor did he forfeit it through egregious misconduct. The violation of Trass' right to counsel constituted structural error, requiring automatic reversal of his convictions. The court also found no violation of Trass' statutory right to a speedy trial and sufficient evidence to support his felony-murder conviction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. View "State v. Trass" on Justia Law

On the evening of February 11, 2018, Deizmond C. Peters and three accomplices allegedly committed a series of crimes at a Wichita home, resulting in the death of Donte Devore. The group, armed with handguns, entered the home after assaulting Devore on the porch. During an altercation inside, Devore was shot and killed. Peters was later charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, criminal possession of a weapon, and four counts of aggravated assault.The Sedgwick District Court held a jury trial where Peters was convicted on all charges. Peters filed a motion for a new trial, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, which the court denied. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 618 months plus an additional 332 months. Peters appealed his convictions, raising several claims of trial and sentencing errors.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found merit in two of Peters' arguments. First, the court agreed that the evidence did not support his conviction for criminal possession of a weapon due to an error in the stipulation used to prove this charge. Second, the court noted that the sentencing journal entry of judgment improperly omitted Peters' jail credit award of 1,437 days. The court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding no error in the jury selection process, prosecutorial conduct, jury instructions, or the cumulative error doctrine. The court also upheld the method of determining Peters' criminal history under the Kansas Criminal Sentencing Guidelines, rejecting his constitutional challenge.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case with directions to vacate Peters' sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, resentence him without the reversed conviction, and issue a nunc pro tunc order correcting the sentencing journal entry to include the jail credit award. View "State v. Peters" on Justia Law

Phillip Jason Garrett was accused of inappropriately touching a minor, L.A., who was under 14 years old. During a police interview, Garrett confessed to some of the allegations. The district court suppressed his statements, concluding they were involuntary due to deceptive police practices, including the use of a computerized voice stress analysis (CVSA) test, which officers falsely claimed was 100% accurate.The Saline District Court initially denied Garrett's motion to suppress, finding his statements voluntary. However, the court later reversed its decision, emphasizing the deceptive nature of the CVSA and the officers' tactics. The State appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's suppression order, holding that the district court had placed undue weight on the deceptive practices and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the deceptive practices by law enforcement, including the exaggerated claims about the CVSA's accuracy, did not constitute misconduct under the totality of the circumstances. The court noted that Garrett was a mature adult of average intelligence, fluent in English, and that the interrogation was not unduly prolonged or aggressive. The court concluded that the officers' tactics did not overbear Garrett's will, and thus, his confession was voluntary. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Garrett" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his four minor children. The children were adjudicated as children in need of care (CINC) and placed in foster care due to the mother's suspected drug use, the family's unstable living situation, and noncompliance with a medical safety plan for one child's special needs. Over three years, the father relied on the mother as the primary contact with agencies and maintained that she would be the primary caretaker upon reintegration. However, the mother was repeatedly incarcerated, failed drug tests, and submitted falsified documents. The father, although appropriate during visits, was not engaged in the reintegration process and failed to meet the goals of his court-ordered reintegration plan.The Johnson District Court extended the parents' reintegration plans three times without sufficient progress and terminated parental rights after two failed attempts to place the children in Missouri, where the parents had bought a home. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination decision for both parents. The father petitioned for review, questioning whether the district court properly considered his unfitness separate from the mother's and whether the termination was an abuse of discretion.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no error. The court held that the father was unfit by clear and convincing evidence due to his failure to engage in the reintegration process, reliance on the mother despite her issues, and failure to provide a sustainable childcare plan. The court also found that the father's unfitness was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, given the three-year period without significant progress. The court concluded that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children, considering their need for permanency and the father's inability to provide a stable and safe environment. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "In re D.G." on Justia Law

In May 2019, Mia Marie Collins attempted to flee from police in a stolen vehicle in downtown Wichita, resulting in a collision that killed two people and injured three others. Collins was charged with multiple offenses, including two counts of felony murder. She pled guilty to the felony murder charges, one count of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer, and three counts of aggravated battery, while other charges were dismissed. The plea agreement recommended concurrent sentences except for one aggravated battery count, which was to run consecutively based on the victim's severe injuries.The Sedgwick District Court, presided over by Judge Tyler J. Roush, held a hearing on Collins' motion to withdraw her plea. Collins argued that the State failed to disclose a news article about a civil settlement involving one of the victims, which she claimed would have influenced her decision to accept the plea deal. The district court found that the State did not have the information about the settlement at the time of the plea agreement and had no duty to know it. The court denied Collins' motion, stating that the State had not suppressed evidence and that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that there was no Brady violation because the State did not suppress any evidence, willfully or inadvertently. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Collins' motion to withdraw her plea, as the plea was made with full knowledge of the circumstances. Additionally, the court dismissed Collins' appeal regarding jail time credit as moot, since she had already been awarded the credit she sought. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law