Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two police officers and two training officers entered a locked apartment without a warrant to assist Defendant, who was lying unresponsive on the couch. Once Defendant was awake and clearly not needing emergency medical assistance, the officers began a criminal investigation. Defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of school property, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and felony use or possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence obtained as a result of the officers' warrantless entry. The district court granted the motion, holding (1) the officers’ initial entry was permitted under the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement, but (2) the officers’ ensuing search was unlawful. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the officers unreasonably exceeded the permissible scope of their warrantless entry. In so holding, the Supreme Court realigned its previous Kansas test for applying the emergency aid exception with more recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. View "State v. Neighbors" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. Before trial, the State moved for a determination as to the admissibility of Defendant’s inculpatory statements to police. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Defendant had the opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of the statements. The district court allowed the statements to be admitted. After he was convicted and sentenced, Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress inculpatory statements he made to the police, and (2) structural error occurred when he was not allowed to testify in support of his motion to reconsider the trial court’s earlier ruling that his statements to police were voluntarily given. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in determining that Defendant’s statements to the police were voluntary and knowingly given; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant a second opportunity to testify and his request proffer his testimony at the motion to reconsider. View "State v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences in two cases. The first case, which was tried to a jury, involved sex offenses against a thirteen-year-old, and the second case arose from an unrelated incident involving burglary and theft that was tried to the bench on stipulated facts while the jury in the first case deliberated. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in both cases, holding (1) prosecutor improperly opined on the credibility of a witness during the trial on the sex crime charges, but the mistake did not require reversal of Defendant’s sex crime convictions; (2) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide him with ineffective assistance; (3) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s sex crime convictions; and (4) Defendant’s argument that the district court’s failure to make on-the-record findings on Defendant’s departure motion rendered his sentences in the burglary and theft case illegal was without merit. View "State v. Dull" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after he admitted stabbing his mother to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) one comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments was improper, but the misconduct did not deny Appellant a fair trial; (2) the district court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of reckless second-degree murder; (3) the district court did not err in excluding evidence about Appellant's auditory hallucinations prior to the killing; (4) the district court did not err in determining for sentencing purposes that Appellant was not “mentally retarded” under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4634; and (5) the district court did not err in refusing to commit Appellant to the state security hospital rather than prison. View "State v. Maestas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, an off-grid person felony, and sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence that Appellant was previously charged with aggravated incest of his stepdaughter and subsequently entered into a diversion agreement regarding the charge; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of aggravated criminal sodomy; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for a departure sentence. View "State v. Remmert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not commit reversible error in instructing or failing to instruct the jury on several issues; (2) Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress post-Miranda statements he made to police was not preserved for appellate review; (3) Defendant’s argument that the complaint filed against Defendant was defective was without merit; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of the crimes; and (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Littlejohn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and related offenses. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences plus fifty-nine months. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by improperly cross-examining an expert witness for the defense, introducing the concept of “grooming” without evidentiary support and misstating the law by arguing that grooming could establish Defendant’s sexual intent, and vouching for the credibility of the State’s witnesses while openly opining about Defendant’s truthfulness; and (2) the district court erred by excluding testimony about prior false allegations of sexual abuse on the basis that the proffered witnesses were related to Defendant. View "State v. Akins" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated liberties with a child and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion requesting that the victim undergo an independent psychological examination. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the Court could not ascertain whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion because a reasonably accurate and complete record of the trial proceeding did not exist. Therefore, the Court could not provide the meaningful appellate review that due process required. View "State v. Holt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with no tax stamp affixed, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, concluding, among other things, that Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with no tax stamp were not multiplicitous. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with no tax stamp violated Kan. Stat. Ann 21-3107(2)(b)'s prohibition against a person being convicted of both a greater and a lesser crime. View "State v. Hensley" on Justia Law

The taxpayers in this case were out-of-state natural gas marketing companies, out-of-state local distribution companies that were certified as public utilities in their states, and out-of-state municipalities. Each taxpayer bought natural gas from producers or other marketers then delivered it to pipelines under contracts allowing the taxpayers to withdraw equivalent amounts of gas at a later time from out-of-state distribution points. The taxpayers filed requests for ad valorem tax exemption, claiming the natural gas was exempt under Kan. Const. art. 11, 1, which exempts merchants' inventory from ad valorem taxation but does not exempt tangible personal property owned by a public utility. The Kansas Court of Tax Appeals determined the natural gas was not exempt because the taxpayers were public utilities pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-5a01. The Supreme Court held (1) the taxation at issue did not violate the Commerce Clause or the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution; (2) section 79-5a01 was constitutional as applied to the out-of-state local distribution companies; but (3) section 79-5a01 was unconstitutional as applied to the out-of-state natural gas marketing companies and those taxpayers that were out-of-state municipalities because those entities were not public utilities under the meaning of the statute. View "In re Property Valuation Appeals of Various Applicants" on Justia Law