Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and criminal damage to property. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the prosecutor violated Doyle v. Ohio during his cross-examination of Defendant, but Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions on the basis of the Doyle error alone; (2) there was one instance of prosecutorial misconduct during closing, but this single error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record; (3) the district court judge did not commit clear error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; (4) the district judge did not err by telling the jury at the beginning of the trial that a mistrial attributable to jury misconduct would be a burden on the parties and taxpayers; (5) the criminal damage conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; (6) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; and (7) the district judge did not err in determining Defendant’s criminal history score. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of rape. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment with lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime registration as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). Defendant appealed, arguing that the requirement of lifetime registration as a sex offender is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of section 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that lifetime registration as a sex offender pursuant to KORA does not qualify as punishment for either section 9 or Eighth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Petersen-Beard" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and lifetime post-release supervision. The court further ordered Defendant to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) for his lifetime, finding that this was Defendant’s second conviction based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. Defendant appealed, arguing that his juvenile adjudication could not count as a prior conviction to enhance the time period of registration. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in imposing a lifetime registration term but that the 2011 amended registration term of twenty-five years, rather than the ten-year registration term in effect when Defendant committed his crime, could be applied retroactively to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Ex Post Factor Clause precludes the retroactive application of the 2011 version of KORA to any sex offender who committed the qualifying offense prior to July 1, 2011. View "State v. Buser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional first-degree murder, felony murder, and related crimes. The district court imposed a life sentence with a minimum of fifty years for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his hard fifty life sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a mistrial, which asserted that Defendant had been prejudiced by the introduction of certain out-of-court statements; (3) assuming that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an aiding and theory, Defendant invited any error by requesting the instruction; and (4) Defendant’s hard fifty life sentence was improperly imposed in light of Alleyne v. United States. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Logsdon" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional first-degree murder, felony murder, and related crimes. The district court imposed a life sentence with a minimum of fifty years for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his hard fifty life sentence, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a mistrial, which asserted that Defendant had been prejudiced by the introduction of certain out-of-court statements; (3) assuming that the district court erred in instructing the jury on an aiding and theory, Defendant invited any error by requesting the instruction; and (4) Defendant’s hard fifty life sentence was improperly imposed in light of Alleyne v. United States. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Logsdon" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested under suspicion of driving while under the influence and taken to a law enforcement center. Defendant refused to provide a breath sample for testing, so a law enforcement officer applied for and received a warrant to search Defendant’s blood. Defendant was subsequently charged with refusing to submit to testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025, among other offenses. Defendant appealed, challenging the constitutionality of section 8-1025. The district court dismissed the charge against Defendant that alleged a violation of section 8-1025, finding that the statute violated Defendant’s due process rights and violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the holdings in State v. Ryce, which stated that section 8-1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional, are equally applicable to Defendant and resolve his case. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence and transported to the county jail, where he refused to submit to a death test. The State charged Defendant with refusing to submit to testing for the presence of alcohol or drugs, in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025(a). The district court dismissed the section 8-1025 charge, concluding that it is unconstitutional to criminalize a defendant’s refusal to submit to a chemical test for alcohol. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 8-1025 does not withstand strict scrutiny by being narrowly tailored to serve the State’s interests and therefore violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "State v. Ryce" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. He was taken to the county jail, where he read an implied consent advisory advising him of the consequences if he refused to consent to a breath-alcohol test. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of his breath test results, contending that his consent to the test was not voluntary, and therefore, the test violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search. The district court concluded that Defendant’s consent to the breath test was not freely and voluntarily given. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s consent was involuntary because it was obtained by means of an inaccurate and coercive advisement and, therefore, the district court correctly suppressed Defendant’s breath-alcohol test results. View "State v. Nece" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence, refusing to submit to an evidentiary test under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025, and related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or suppress evidence, arguing that section 8-1025, which criminalized his refusal to submit to a breath test, was unconstitutional. The district court concluded that section 8-1025 was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and also imposed an unconstitutional condition on the privilege to drive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 8-1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional. View "State v. Wycoff" on Justia Law

Paul Sykes was convicted of burglary and aggravated sexual battery. Prior to the expiration of his sentence, the State filed a petition seeking to have Sykes adjudicated a sexually violent predator. Although Sykes was found incompetent to assist in his own defense, the district court ultimately ruled Sykes was a sexually violent predator and ordered him committed. The court of appeals affirmed. Sykes appealed, arguing that due process requires that a respondent be mentally competent to assist in his or her own defense in order to be civilly adjudicated a sexually violent predator. The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication, holding that a respondent need not be competent to be adjudicated a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, and therefore, Sykes did not suffer a violation of his due process rights. View "In re Care & Treatment of Sykes" on Justia Law