Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a weapon after a 2016 home invasion and homicide. Following a mistrial at his first proceeding, a second trial resulted in convictions on all charges. At his original sentencing, the district court calculated the defendant’s criminal history score as A, in part based on a 2003 criminal-threat conviction, and imposed a life sentence without parole eligibility for 653 months, plus consecutive sentences on the remaining counts.On appeal from the original sentencing, the Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence. The court concluded that the district court erred in including the 2003 conviction in the criminal history score, as the statute under which it was obtained had been found unconstitutional in part by the Supreme Court of Kansas in State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 800 (2019). The court remanded the case for resentencing with instructions not to include the 2003 conviction. On remand, the district court recalculated the criminal history score as B and resentenced the defendant accordingly, reducing the parole eligibility period and other determinate sentences. The court denied the defense’s renewed motion for a departure sentence.The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the appeal from resentencing. The defendant raised, for the first time, constitutional challenges to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, arguing that it violated his jury trial rights by permitting a judge to determine prior convictions that enhance punishment. The court declined to review these unpreserved claims, finding that settled law foreclosed relief. The defendant’s claim for additional jail credit was rendered moot by a nunc pro tunc order from the district court. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Smith " on Justia Law

On July 17, 2022, Printara Jackson was found dead from a gunshot wound at an apartment complex in Kansas City, with Cedrick Scott injured nearby. Scott was transported to the hospital and survived. The State charged Terry Horton with aggravated battery for Scott’s injuries and felony murder for Jackson’s death. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video and testimony from the lead detective, since there were no known eyewitnesses except Scott, who was never interviewed. Witnesses placed Horton at the scene, and video evidence showed a person identified as Horton separating from a group near the location and time of the shooting. The State theorized that Horton shot Scott after a dispute involving his sister, resulting in Jackson’s death during the commission of that crime.The District Court of Wyandotte County presided over the trial. During the proceedings, the court excluded as inadmissible certain hearsay statements attributed to Scott, ruling that they constituted impermissible double hearsay not covered by an exception. Horton was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and aggravated battery and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus a concurrent sentence for the battery charge. He appealed, challenging the exclusion of hearsay evidence, sufficiency of the evidence, alleged prosecutorial error, and cumulative error.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that before admitting double hearsay, a statutory exception must apply to each layer of hearsay, and found no error in the trial court’s ruling because Horton had not established an applicable exception at trial. The court also held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported Horton’s convictions and found no prosecutorial error or cumulative error. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed Horton’s convictions. View "State v. Horton " on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal shooting that occurred in the early morning hours in the Aggieville district of Manhattan, Kansas. The defendant, a 19-year-old, engaged in a verbal altercation with another group after leaving a bar. During the argument, the defendant retrieved a firearm from his vehicle and approached a member of the other group, Joshua Wardi. Despite not seeing Wardi or anyone else with a weapon, the defendant claimed he felt threatened and shot Wardi five times at close range, killing him. The defendant then ran in the same direction as other members of Wardi's group, who fled after seeing the firearm. Police pursued and apprehended him shortly thereafter. At trial, the defendant argued that he acted out of fear but acknowledged that Wardi was unarmed and that his actions were motivated by anxiety.The Riley District Court presided over the trial, where the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and three counts of aggravated assault. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 767 months. He appealed, alleging errors including the denial of requested jury instructions on self-defense and imperfect self-defense, insufficient evidence supporting the attempted murder convictions, improper judicial comments, and cumulative error.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that, although instructions on imperfect self-defense and self-defense were legally appropriate, the record did not contain evidence sufficient to make them factually appropriate. Even assuming error in not giving the imperfect self-defense instruction, the court found it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming evidence against the defendant. The court also determined that the defendant’s confession regarding the attempted murders was sufficiently corroborated. Judicial comment error regarding the mention of the potential life sentence was found to be harmless, particularly since a curative instruction was given. The cumulative effect of any errors did not deny the defendant a fair trial. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the convictions. View "State v. Montgomery " on Justia Law

The case involves a father who was convicted for the death of his two-year-old daughter. He had custody of both his children after their mother, concerned about her ability to provide a stable home, gave him custody. The children’s mother visited infrequently due to distance and the pandemic. Throughout her life, the daughter experienced issues with weight and health, but was generally described as happy and healthy in the months before her death. In late 2020, her weight declined and she was seen by healthcare providers, but there were no immediate concerns for malnutrition. In early January 2021, the child was found dead at home, with autopsy results indicating death by starvation and dehydration over a period of weeks, with evidence of neglect.The case was tried in the Shawnee District Court, where the defendant was charged with first-degree felony murder, reckless second-degree murder, aggravated endangering of a child, and failure to report the death of a child. The jury found him guilty of all counts. At sentencing, the court merged the second-degree murder conviction into the felony murder conviction and imposed consecutive sentences, including life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for 653 months.On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, the defendant challenged, among other things, the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony regarding possible medical malpractice by the child’s healthcare providers. The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this evidence, finding it was not relevant to whether the defendant criminally neglected his daughter. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated part of the sentence due to a clerical error in the journal entry and remanded for correction of the sentencing entry. View "State v. Exon " on Justia Law

Adrian N. Zongker was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon after he killed a restaurant owner in Wichita. At the time of the murder, Zongker was on postrelease supervision for a prior conviction, with 233 days remaining on that sentence. After his convictions were affirmed on appeal, the case was remanded for resentencing on the weapons charge. During resentencing, the district court awarded Zongker 526 days of jail credit but refused to credit him for about eight months that he had been held on a parole violation warrant, finding that any credit for those months in his prior case precluded duplicative credit in the new case due to Kansas’s consecutive sentencing rule.The District Court of Sedgwick County applied the rule requiring consecutive sentences for new offenses committed while on probation or postrelease supervision and denied Zongker duplicative jail credit for the contested period. Zongker appealed directly to the Kansas Supreme Court, arguing that he was entitled to credit for all days spent incarcerated pending disposition of the murder case, even if he had already received credit for those days in another case.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the jail-credit statute’s interpretation in light of its recent decisions, particularly State v. Hopkins and State v. Ervin. Upholding its prior interpretations, the court held that the statute plainly requires credit for all time spent incarcerated pending disposition of the case at issue, regardless of whether the defendant also received credit for that time in another case. The court rejected arguments based on the absurdity canon, legislative history, and the in pari materia doctrine, finding no ambiguity in the statutory language. The court therefore vacated Zongker’s sentence in part and remanded the case with instructions to award credit for all days spent incarcerated pending disposition, including those for which he received credit in his prior case. View "State v. Zongker " on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted by jury in two separate 1993 rape cases. In the first, the conviction was based on evidence that included a matching pair of socks, DNA from a condom that matched both the defendant and the victim, and the defendant’s shifting explanation about his relationship with the victim. In the second, police received a tip implicating the defendant, obtained his blood sample, and matched his DNA to seminal fluid found on the victim’s clothing, despite the defendant’s denial of any sexual contact.Years after his convictions, the defendant filed a petition in Leavenworth District Court under Kansas law, seeking DNA testing or retesting of biological evidence from his cases. He argued that advancements in DNA testing technology since the 1990s warranted a new round of testing, specifically proposing the use of Y-STR methods. The district court held multiple hearings, including an evidentiary hearing, and found that the defendant failed to demonstrate that newer DNA techniques were more accurate or probative than the methods used at the time of trial. The court emphasized that merely the passage of time and technological improvement did not, by themselves, justify retesting and that the defendant bore the burden to show the new method would likely yield more accurate results.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed whether the district court erred in denying the DNA retesting request. The court held that K.S.A. 21-2512(a)(3) requires a petitioner to show that new DNA techniques provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results, not simply that time has passed or technology has advanced. The court affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding the defendant did not meet his statutory burden to justify retesting. View "State v. Ruff " on Justia Law

Two high-ranking Kansas executive officials became embroiled in disputes stemming from federal government actions related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and federal grant funding for state agencies. The federal government requested sensitive data from state SNAP programs and threatened to withhold funding if states did not comply. The Kansas Governor viewed these demands as unlawful and opposed compliance, while the Kansas Attorney General disagreed with the Governor’s legal position and asserted that only his office could represent Kansas in related legal challenges. This led to friction over which state official had authority to control litigation involving the state’s interests.The Governor filed a quo warranto petition directly in the Kansas Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that she had constitutional authority to litigate on behalf of the state or, alternatively, on behalf of her office and its agencies. The Attorney General took the position that only he could represent the state as a whole, but conceded there was no objection to the Governor representing her office or executive agencies when they, not the state as a whole, were the real party in interest. The dispute in the lower courts did not involve any jury findings, and the Kansas Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to consider the petition.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas concluded that, as the case developed, the parties narrowed their disagreement. Both agreed that the Attorney General speaks for the state when the state is the real party in interest, and the Governor speaks for her office or agencies when they are the real party in interest. Because the parties’ positions converged and the remaining dispute was not of significant public importance or suitable for resolution through quo warranto, the Kansas Supreme Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the Governor’s petition. View "Kelly v. Kobach " on Justia Law

A man borrowed his mother's SUV in Wichita, Kansas, and was allegedly involved in a fatal shooting at a busy intersection. Security and Flock cameras captured the SUV near the scene, and eyewitnesses described the vehicle and its driver in detail. The next day, police stopped the SUV, which was then driven by the mother, and observed possible bullet damage. The mother consented to a search, which revealed gunshot residue. Police later found ammunition and spent .45 caliber casings in the man’s basement bedroom at his parents’ house after his mother let them enter. His fingerprint was found on an ammunition tray. He was arrested and charged with first-degree felony murder based on discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle.Following a jury trial in the Sedgwick District Court, the man was convicted of felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years and a consecutive 13-month sentence. He appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, raising issues about the retention of certain jurors despite potential conflicts, the admission of evidence from the search of his mother’s SUV, and the admission of evidence from the search of his bedroom.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to certain jurors by failing to object or move for dismissal. It further found he lacked standing to challenge the search of his mother’s car, as he had no possessory interest or reasonable expectation of privacy in it. Finally, the court assumed, without deciding, that the search of his bedroom was unlawful but concluded that any error in admitting the resulting evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the other evidence. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Manzano-Legarda " on Justia Law

This case concerns a criminal prosecution following the shooting death of Matthew Smith in Lansing, Kansas, in August 2020. The State charged the defendant with felony murder and initially endorsed 24 witnesses. Prior to trial, the State filed several motions to endorse additional witnesses, with the third such motion, filed less than two weeks before trial, seeking to add 10 new witnesses. Some of these witnesses had testified at the preliminary hearing or were mentioned in earlier filings, while others had not previously been endorsed. The late endorsement would have forced the withdrawal of defense counsel due to conflicts with two of the proposed witnesses, which could have resulted in a significant delay and implicated the defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights.The Leavenworth District Court denied the State’s third motion to endorse witnesses, finding that allowing the late endorsements would prejudice the defendant by causing delay and potentially violating his speedy trial rights. The State filed an interlocutory appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which held that it had jurisdiction and reversed the district court. The panel reasoned that the district court applied the wrong standard, focusing improperly on the State’s conduct and not on whether the late endorsements would cause the defendant actual prejudice by way of surprise.Upon review, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State’s motion. The Supreme Court clarified that, while a district court’s discretion to grant late endorsements is limited by the need to avoid prejudice, there is no requirement that a district court must grant such a motion unless there is a finding of prejudice by surprise. The Supreme Court held that it is entirely within the district court’s discretion to deny a late motion to endorse witnesses and affirmed the district court’s order, reversing the Court of Appeals. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Craig " on Justia Law

The defendant was involved in a long-term relationship with the adult victim, with whom he shared an eight-year-old daughter. In March 2020, both the woman and her daughter were found dead from gunshot wounds in their home. Law enforcement determined that the defendant was responsible for the shootings, which occurred while he was on probation for unrelated offenses. The State initially charged him with capital murder and other offenses, intending to seek the death penalty. The parties reached a plea agreement in which the defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder and reckless second-degree murder. In exchange, the State dismissed other charges and agreed not to pursue the death penalty, recommending consecutive sentences totaling a minimum of 65 years.After entering his pleas, the defendant requested a downward departure from the mandatory hard 50 sentence for first-degree murder and sought concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. He argued that his acceptance of responsibility, mental disorders, history of nonviolent offenses, impaired brain function due to substance abuse, low risk for future violence, and rehabilitative efforts constituted substantial and compelling reasons for a lesser sentence. The Sedgwick District Court denied his motion, finding that the mitigating factors presented did not justify departure given the extreme violence of the crimes, the breach of trust involved, and their impact on the victims’ family and community. The court imposed a hard 50 sentence for first-degree murder, consecutive to the sentence for second-degree murder and his prior probation violation.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the departure motion. The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not abuse its discretion, as a reasonable person could agree that the defendant failed to present substantial and compelling reasons to justify a departure from the presumptive sentence. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Lopez " on Justia Law