Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

After Defendant was charged with rape and other crimes, the district court appointed an attorney from the public defender's office to represent Defendant. The appointed attorney subsequently filed three motions to withdraw as Defendant's counsel. The first two motions were due to conflicts of interest. The district court forced defense counsel to represent Defendant at trial, after which the attorney/client relationship deteriorated to the point that all communication ceased. After the jury convicted Defendant of all charges but before sentencing, defense counsel filed a third motion to withdraw on the ground of prejudice and bias. The district court ordered the conflicted attorney to continue representing Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's complete disregard for Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel during his criminal prosecution was reversible error. Remanded. View "State v. Stovall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several offenses, including the crime of forgery in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3710(a)(2). Defendant appealed his forgery conviction, which was based upon his attempt to cash a $350 check at CheckSmart. Defendant argued that the terms "issuing or delivering" in section 21-3710(a)(2) established alternative means of committing forgery and that the State did not present sufficient evidence that Defendant issued the forged check. The court of appeals upheld the forgery conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the legislature did not intend to create alternative means of committing forgery, and consequently, the State did not have to present evidence that Defendant both issued the check and delivered the check; and (2) the substantial competent evidence that established that Defendant delivered a fraudulent check knowingly and with intent to defraud was sufficient to support Defendant's forgery conviction. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, arson, and aggravated burglary. On appeal, Defendant unsuccessfully challenged the district judge's denial of his motion to suppress a videotape of his interview with law enforcement. Defendant subsequently filed several motions, including a motion to correct an illegal sentence, raising issues related to the use of his statements to law enforcement. A later motion was also entitled motion to correct illegal sentence and contained arguments similar to those Defendant raised earlier. The motions were denied by the district court. Defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the lack of an evidentiary hearing below did not preclude the Court's meaningful review; and (2) res judicata applied in this case. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law