Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated interference with parental custody and disorderly conduct. The court of appeals found several trial errors, including two instances of prosecutorial misconduct and three jury instruction errors, but concluded that the errors did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated interference with parental custody and affirmed her conviction for disorderly conduct, holding (1) two of the trial errors, both of which related to Defendant’s defense of ignorance or mistake, warranted the reversal of Defendant’s conviction for attempted aggravated interference with parental custody; and (2) the prejudice Defendant suffered as a result of these errors did not taint her conviction for disorderly conduct, nor did any other claimed errors. View "State v. Ortega" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. After the sentencing judge found by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of four aggravating factors, Defendant received a hard fifty life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction. Defendant appealed, raising nine issues challenging his convictions and two challenging his sentences. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions, thus rejecting Defendant’s claims of reversible error; and (2) vacated Defendant’s sentence for first-degree murder, holding that Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States, was violated because the judge, rather than the jury, found the four aggravating factors existed and did so on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, rather than a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.View "State v. Hilt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the trial court denied Defendant his right under the Sixth Amendment to have the effective assistance of counsel at a critical stage of the criminal proceedings against him when the court denied Defendant’s pro se motions for a new trial without first appointing new conflict-free counsel to assist Defendant in arguing the motions. Remanded for appointment of new counsel and instructions to hold a new holding on Defendant’s pro se motions for new trial.View "State v. Sharkey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence, holding that Kansas’ hard fifty sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States and Ring v. Arizona because it permits a judge to find by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of one or more aggravating factors necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for resentencing.View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with possession of methamphetamine after law enforcement officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle based on a turn signal violation, searched the vehicle because they detected a very strong odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle, and discovered methamphetamine during the search. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the fruits of the warrantless search. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the strong odor of alcohol emanating from within the vehicle established probable cause for the officers to search the vehicle for an open container of alcohol. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search was unlawful because the officers failed to acquire additional inculpatory facts relating to the crime being investigated before commencing their search of the vehicle.View "State v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal threat. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court accepted review to address Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor committed three separate acts of prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court of appeals applied the prosecutorial misconduct standard as explained in State v. Tosh in rejecting Defendant’s contentions of prosecutorial misconduct. Before the Supreme Court Defendant argued that this traditional multi-prong test was flawed because it leaves open the possibility the misconduct affected the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s criticism of the traditional prosecutorial misconduct standard was unwarranted; and (2) the court of appeals correctly found that there was no merit to two of Defendant’s misconduct claims, and the prosecutor’s misconduct in using a jigsaw puzzle analogy during voir dire and closing arguments did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to hard twenty-five life sentences imposed under Jessica’s Law. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to give a unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in handling Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a law enforcement officer’s violation of an order in limine when the officer volunteered that Defendant invoked his postarrest right to remain silent and described the circumstances of that invocation because Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the officer’s testimony; and (3) the cumulative impact of these errors substantially prejudiced Defendant’s right to a fair trial.View "State v. Santos-Vega" on Justia Law

A petition to convene a citizen-initiated grand jury alleged wrongdoing by the officers and directors of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Unified Government). The grand jury returned an indictment charging Rodney Turner, an attorney who did consulting and legal work for BPU, with two counts of theft and fifty-five counts of presenting a false claim. Turner moved to dismiss the indictment for grand jury abuse and violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Turner did not possess the full panoply of constitutional rights at the investigatory proceedings by the grand jury and that the constitutional violations that did occur during the proceedings did not prejudice him. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment, holding that the record established grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of abuses of process and constitutional violations caused by the State’s agents during the grand jury proceedings. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of the social guest of Defendant’s girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the district court’s admission of and failure to give limiting instructions on evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs was harmless; (2) the district court correctly refused to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no prosecutorial misconduct arising from references to school shootings during closing argument; and (4) Defendant received a fair trial untainted by cumulative error. View "State v. Story" on Justia Law

A bullet fatally wounded a man sitting inside the house of Defendant's neighbor. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Defendant was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after twenty years for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting prior shooting evidence; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements to police; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of a locked storage area of Defendant’s residence. View "State v. Richard" on Justia Law