Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error by the district court in answering a jury question with a written response in violation of Defendant’s right to be present at all critical stages of his trial was harmless; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the submission of a written answer to the jury question violated his right to an impartial judge and public trial; and (3) the district court did not commit clear error in failing to give a jury instruction on a lesser included severity level for the crime of aggravated battery. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

While Defendant was serving a nonprison sentence of probation with community corrections supervision in three cases, the State filed a motion to revoke Defendant’s probation. After a hearing, the district court stated that it would reinstate Defendant on probation with a ninety-day sanction. The court, however, reopened the completed probation revocation hearing based upon Defendant’s subsequent contemptuous act, found Defendant in direct contempt of court, and ordered Defendant to serve his original sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation was based on a ground for which Defendant was not provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in violation of Defendant’s due process rights. Remanded for a new probation revocation hearing. View "State v. Hurley" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant’s lawyer subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge denied. Defendant also filed a pro se motion, which the district judge construed as a motion for new trial. In his motion, Defendant argued, in relevant part, that his lawyer had failed to put on evidence in Defendant’s defense. Characterizing Defendant’s arguments as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district judge concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the court of appeals said that Defendant could challenge his trial counsel’s effectiveness through a later motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. Defendant subsequently filed a section 60-1507 motion, arguing that his trial counsel had been ineffective in several respects. After an evidentiary hearing, the district judge denied Defendant relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) conflict existed between Defendant and his lawyer at the hearing on the motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s remaining allegations were without merit. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard fifty sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the sentencing scheme under which Defendant was sentenced has been declared to be unconstitutional, and therefore, Defendant must be resentenced; (2) this was not a multiple acts case requiring a unanimity instruction; (3) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were in error, but the error was harmless; (5) Defendant was not convicted in violation of the corpus delicti rule; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (7) the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a search of Defendant’s outbuilding; and (8) Defendant was not denied a fair trial due to cumulative error. View "State v. Sprague" on Justia Law

The State charged Appellant with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women. The murders constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. Appellant was sentenced to death for his convictions for two counts of capital murder. On appeal, Appellant raised nineteen general claims of reversible error covering the entire trial proceedings, as well as a variety of sub-claims. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count II; (2) reversed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count III and his first-degree murder conviction charged in Count V as unconstitutionally multiplicitous with the capital murder conviction in Count II; (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant’s convictions; (4) affirmed Appellant’s sentence of death under his capital murder conviction in Count II; and (5) vacated the portion of Appellant’s sentence designating certain of his crimes sexually motivated and remanded for a correction of the journal entry. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and three counts of criminal sodomy for the sexual abuse of his daughter. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five sentence for the aggravated criminal sodomy count and an additional 118 months’ imprisonment for the remaining counts. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for a State v. Van Cleave hearing to determine whether Defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, either because trial counsel was not constitutionally competent or was not constitutionally conflict-free. View "State v. Moyer" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was once again convicted of felony murder and the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to give lesser included offense instructions to the felony-murder charge; (2) the prosecutor made a misstatement of the law during closing argument, but the misconduct did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (3) the district court did not commit judicial misconduct in giving an instruction warning the jury against considering any information outside of the evidence presented at trial; and (4) Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because the State did not prove his prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt when imposing an enhanced sentence. View "State v. Tahah" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and other crimes. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory term of fifty years for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a potential juror’s statements; (2) Defendant did not preserve his argument that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress an eyewitness identification; (3) the district court did err by denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial and his motion for a new trial based on the eyewitness’ changed testimony at trial; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a weapon and the results of scientific testing conducted on it despite any deficiency in the chain of custody; and (5) the district court’s instruction to the jury to consider the degree of certainty demonstrated by the eyewitness when identifying Defendant was not clearly erroneous. The Court, however, vacated Defendant’s hard fifty life sentence and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that Defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of his constitutional right to a jury trial, and the error was not harmless. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

After a joint trial with his co-defendant, Defendant was convicted of one count of premeditated first-degree murder and other crimes and sentenced to life with a minimum term of fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the hard fifty life sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a potential juror’s statements; (2) the district court did err by denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial based on a witness’ testimony; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to sever his trial from his co-defendant’s trial; (5) the reasonable doubt instruction given in this case was not clearly erroneous; but (6) Defendant’s sentence was imposed in violation of his constitutional right to a jury trial, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle for displaying an improper license. An officer had Defendant, the driver, and his passenger exit the vehicle and searched the vehicle, which led to the seizure of a wallet from inside the vehicle. The wallet contained Defendant’s identification, which led to the discovery that Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked. The officers placed Defendant under arrest and conducted a pat-down search that produced cocaine from Defendant’s pants pocket. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that his arrest was illegal and the subsequent search incident to arrest was invalid as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court of appeals affirmed on procedural grounds, noting that the district court did not have an opportunity to consider and rule upon the search and seizure challenge that Defendant presented on appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ refusal to entertain the merits of Defendant’s arguments, holding that defense counsel’s stipulations in the district court prevented the evidentiary inquiry necessary to produce the factual findings below that would permit appellate consideration of Defendant’s fruit of the poisonous tree theory without speculation as to what the facts might have been. View "State v. Estrada-Vital" on Justia Law