Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After his first trial ended with a hung jury, Defendant was retried and convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal from Defendant’s second trial, holding (1) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to be protected from double jeopardy by allowing him to be retried for the same crimes without formally ordering a mistrial at the conclusion of his first trial; (2) there was sufficient evidence to affirm Defendant’s murder conviction; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the legal definition of “premeditation,” but this misstatement did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, raising four assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the legal definition of “premeditation,” but this misstatement did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (2) the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges to strike African-Americans from the jury panel did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit-first-degree murder. View "State v. Kettler " on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the state’s former statutory procedure for imposing a hard fifty sentence as utilized in this case violated the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States because it permitted 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 factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. DeAnda" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility for parole for fifty years. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the state’s hard fifty sentencing scheme was constitutional. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Following its decision in Alleyne v. United States, the Supreme Court vacated the Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Alleyne. On remand, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial when it imposed the hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Astorga" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct in two statements made during closing argument, but the misconduct did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (2) the trial court did not clearly err in failing to instruct the jury on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder; (3) the trial court did not err in its remaining instructions to the jury; (4) the trial court did not err in finding that there was no factual support for Defendant’s motions for mistrial; (5) the cumulative errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (6) the district court had jurisdiction to award restitution after judgment was pronounced at sentencing. View "State v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with thirteen felonies. On the morning trial was set to begin, Defendant’s counsel orally renewed a motion to withdraw at Defendant’s request. The district judge denied the motion. Defendant subsequently decided to change his plea from not guilty to no contest to one count each of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The district judge accepted the pleas. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, which the district court denied. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district judge denied his right to counsel by hearing the motion to withdraw plea without appointing a new lawyer for him. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when Defendant filed his motion to withdraw plea, the district judge failed to give due consideration to whether Defendant was represented by competent counsel. In fact, neither Defendant’s counsel nor the district judge communicated all of the appeal rights Defendant would surrender as a matter of law by entering his no contest pleas, and “failure to follow the law is an abuse of discretion.” Remanded. View "State v. Kenney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated kidnapping. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (i) Defendant’s claim that his preliminary hearing counsel had a conflict of interest was without merit; (ii) Defendant’s argument that his trial court’s admission into evidence of his prior sex crimes for propensity purposes was not preserved for appeal; (iii) the jury was properly instructed and sufficient evidence supported the aiding-and-abetting rape conviction; (iv) the district court’s delivery of a written response to a jury question outside of Defendant’s presence was harmless error; and (2) vacated the portion of Defendant’s sentence ordering him not to have contact with his codefendants or the victim, holding that the district court exceeded its authority in imposing this portion of the sentence, and affirmed the remainder of Defendant’s sentence. View "State v. Bowen" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with, among other offenses, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer by driving recklessly, and driving with a suspended license. A week before trial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based upon the alleged violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. The trial court denied the motion, emphasizing that most of the delay had been caused by Defendant’s absconding and his counsel’s requests for trial continuances. Defendant was convicted after a jury trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the facts of this case, the State did not violate Defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial. View "State v. Sievers" on Justia Law

Police officer Ricky Ritter observed a blue pickup truck traveling without its headlights on. Defendant was driving a red pickup truck behind the blue pickup truck, and a van was following Defendant. Ritter pulled his squad car behind the three vehicles and activated his emergency lights, intending to stop only the blue truck, but all three vehicles pulled over. Defendant left his truck cab and approached Ritter’s squad car, demanding that Ritter explain why he had been pulled over. Defendant eventually returned to his truck, but, believing Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, Ritter asked Defendant to take a field sobriety test. Defendant failed the test and was eventually convicted of DUI. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence from the traffic stop because he was unlawfully seized, tainting the evidence and requiring its suppression. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted because Defendant’s seizure was unlawful, and all evidence obtained after the unlawful seizure was therefore tainted. View "State v. Reiss" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated battery, and aggravated assault. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Defendant’s life sentence, holding (1) the trial court erred in failing to give an accomplice witness cautionary instruction and in including a degree of certainty factor in its eyewitness identification instruction, but neither error was reversible as clear error; (2) certain comments made by the prosecutor did not constitute misconduct; (3) cumulative error did not render the trial fundamentally unfair or require reversal; but (4) the trial court erred in including lifetime postrelease supervision as part of Defendant’s life sentence. View "State v. Todd " on Justia Law