Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A law enforcement officer, while working on a saturation patrol, stopped a vehicle driven by Defendant and conducted a DUI investigation. Defendant failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test but passed the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests. The officer subsequently requested a preliminary breath test (PBT), the results of which led to Defendant’s arrest and conviction for DUI. Defendant moved to suppress the PBT and breath test results. At the suppression hearing, the district court found that although an HGN test result was inadmissible at trial, it could be used to support “probable cause,” and, under the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion to request the PBT. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding (1) the HGN test could be used to establish reasonable suspicion of DUI that would permit a request for a PBT; and (2) even if the HGN test results were excluded, the officer had enough other evidence to form a reasonable suspicion of DUI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the HGN test results were inappropriately relied upon to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion that permitted the officer to request that Defendant submit to a PBT, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "City of Wichita v. Molitor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it denied Defendant’s request for a jury instruction on second-degree intentional murder, but the error was harmless; (2) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not constitute reversible error; and (3) the remaining alleged trial errors raised on appeal were without merit. The Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, however, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial based on Alleyne v. United States because the court made explicit factual findings that subjected Defendant to an enhanced sentence. View "State v. Killings" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for distribution of methamphetamine, unlawful use of a communication facility to arrange a drug sale, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the State established that venue to prosecute the use of a communication facility charge was proper in Lyon County; (2) the district court did not err in failing to instruct on underlying moving violations supporting the fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer charge; (3) the district court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction on the obstruction of official duty charge; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of the distribution of methamphetamine charge; and (5) the imposition of an enhanced sentence was proper. View "State v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of first-degree premeditated murder in the death of Alfred Mack, second-degree intentional murder in the later death of Justin Letourneau, theft, and aggravated assault. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court reversed all of Defendant’s convictions under the cumulative error doctrine, holding (1) the district judge erred in excluding testimony about a statement Letourneau made in the hours before his death; (2) the jury instruction on alternative first-degree murder theories contained a misstatement of law with respect to reasonable doubt; (3) the district judge erred by not instructing the jury to begin its deliberations anew after one juror had been dismissed and replaced by an alternative juror; and (4) the district judge’s failure to recall some members of the jury when one juror raised the issue of jury misconduct after trial. View "State v. Smith-Parker" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty sentence, which was imposed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (2) the district court did not err by admitting testimony concerning a confrontation between Defendant and the victim a few days before the murder, as the testimony was admissible under a hearsay exception to the general exclusionary rule; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; but (4) because section 21-4635 has been found unconstitutional, Defendant’s hard fifty sentence was vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "State v. Coones" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and forgery and was sentenced to life in prison, with no parole eligibility for twenty-five years. Nearly eleven years after her sentencing, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw her pleas because of manifest injustice, arguing that her lawyer misinformed her about the charges and possible penalties and that she did not understand the length of the prison sentence to which she could be subject if she entered the pleas. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even if Appellant’s attorney misinformed or failed to fully inform Appellant of the charges and possible penalties, any prejudice from that error was cured by the judge’s thoroughness at the plea hearing. View "State v. Miles" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a no contest plea to one count of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Appellant’s intensive supervision officer later filed a warrant alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his probation. After a probation revocation hearing, the district court revoked Appellant’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his prison sentence. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed. Appellant then filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at the probation revocation hearing. The district court denied the motion. A panel of the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the prior panel had already rejected Appellant’s arguments and that the doctrine of res judicata barred Appellant’s present claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred by applying the doctrine of res judicata to bar Defendant’s claim; but (2) the claim was meritless, and therefore, the lower courts did not err in denying Appellant’s motion. View "Grossman v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during a warrantless search of her vehicle conducted incident to a traffic stop. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the pretextual nature of the stop rendered the seizure constitutionally invalid. A divided court of appeals panel affirmed on other grounds, holding that the law enforcement officer did not have a reasonable suspicion that justified the search. The dissenting member of the panel argued that the case should be reversed and remanded for additional findings as to whether a reasonable suspicion existed, as an appellate court cannot engage in factfinding. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence was properly suppressed, as (1) an appellate court conducts a de novo review of the totality of the circumstances to determine whether reasonable suspicion exists; (2) the undisputed facts and the district judge’s findings of fact were sufficient for appellate review of the totality of the circumstances; and (3) based on that review, the court of appeals correctly found that the search in this case was invalid because the circumstances did not establish a reasonable suspicion that justified a search of the vehicle. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Appellant, a persistent sex offender involuntarily committed to Larned State Security Hospital, filed three petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Without requiring responses from the Secretary of the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services and without conducting hearings, the district court dismissed the petitions, concluding that Appellant’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies precluded habeas corpus relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 2012 legislature expressly exempted habeas corpus proceedings from the exhaustion requirements of Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-29a24, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing the petitions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. View "Stanley v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and aggravated burglary. Utilizing Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years for Defendant’s murder conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the sentencing judge erred in imposing a hard fifty sentence because section 21-4635, the hard sentencing statute in effect at the time of his sentencing, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, vacated his hard fifty sentence, and remanded for resentencing, holding that section 21-4635 violates the Sixth Amendment because it imposes additional punishment based on factors not submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Holt" on Justia Law