Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence pursuant to Jessica's Law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred when it allowed the State, through the parties' stipulation, to present evidence establishing that Defendant possessed pornography depicting homosexual acts for the purpose of rebutting Defendant's claim that he was not gay, but the error was harmless; and (2) the district court did not err when it concluded Defendant's sentence was constitutional based on the three factors found in State v. Freeman. View "State v. Boleyn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court, pursuant to Jessica's law, sentenced Defendant to three concurrent hard twenty-five life sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to a reversal of his rape conviction based on the State's failure to prove the alternative methods of engaging in sexual intercourse, as the alternative methods are not alternative means, and therefore, this was not an alternative means case triggering jury unanimity concerns; (2) Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his aggravated indecent liberties with a child convictions because his alternative means argument for these convictions was also without merit; and (3) Defendant's sentences did not violate the prohibition against the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment found in the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district judge erred in admitting prior bad acts evidence under the 2008 version of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455. The court of appeals concluded that Defendant's section 60-455 challenge was not preserved for appeal but proceeded to address it in dicta, concluding that a 2009 amendment to the statute would have vitiated Defendant's challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor engaged in a single instance of misconduct, but the error was harmless; (2) the district judge gave an overbroad elements instruction to the jury, but the error in the instruction did not qualify as clearly erroneous or require reversal; (3) the limiting instruction given on the section 60-455 evidence was not clearly erroneous; and (4) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Hart" on Justia Law

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 and remanded for resentencing. Defendant was subsequently resentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Within one year of the resentencing hearing but more than one year after the remand, Defendant filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court dismissed the motion as untimely. The court of appeals reversed, holding that section 60-1507's time limitation began ten days after resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the facts of this case, the one-year time limitation in which to file a section 60-1507 motion does not begin until the time to appeal from the resentencing expires; and (2) under the circumstances, Defendant's motion was timely. View "Baker v. State" on Justia Law

In 2004, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions, concluding that the district judge had erred by admitting evidence of Defendant's sexual abuse of two victims other than the one making the allegations underlying this case pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455. The legislature responded to the Court's decision by amending section 60-455. At Defendant's retrial, the district judge apparently applied the amended statute to admit the same disputed evidence. Defendant was against convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the application of the amended version of section 60-455 at Defendant's retrial did not violate the federal constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws; and (2) the district judge erred by admitting evidence of Defendant's uncharged sexual abuse of two victims under the amended version of section 60-455, but reversal was not required because the evidence would come in as relevant to Defendant's propensity to abuse the victim in this case under the new section 60-455(d). View "State v. Prine" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted for an aggravated weapons violation. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, determining that there were procedural bars precluding review of Defendant's case. Defendant appealed, contending that his statutory speedy trial rights were violated because he was not brought to trial within 180 days of his request to expedite his case under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act (UMDDA), which provides an intrastate process for prisoners in Kansas penal or correctional institutions to request final disposition of other criminal charges pending in the state. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and vacated his sentence, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in finding Defendant's UMDDA request was fatally deficient; (2) the district court erred in determining that the UMDDA was inapplicable to Defendant's pending charges; and (3) because Defendant properly initiated disposition of his other charges under the UMDDA, the State's failure to bring those charges to trial within 180 days deprived the district court of jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence Defendant. View "State v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to four crimes arising from the abuse of his girlfriend's nineteen-month-old son, resulting in the child's death. The district court ran Defendant's sentences for the four crimes, which included child abuse and felony murder, consecutive to one another. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in imposing consecutive sentences, as a reasonable person could agree with the judge's conclusion that consecutive sentences were appropriate; and (2) Defendant's sentence of 128 months' imprisonment for child abuse did not violate his constitutional rights as recognized in Apprendi v. New Jersey. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with one count of cocaine possession after law enforcement officers arrested him on an outstanding warrant and discovered cocaine in his shoe. The district court granted Defendant's motion to suppress the cocaine, determining that the officers unlawfully detained Defendant before discovering the arrest warrant when they took his identification to run a warrants check, and that unlawful detention tainted the evidence found in the search. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the district court's suppression ruling, holding (1) the officers unlawfully detained Defendant when they parked their patrol vehicle next to Defendant as he walked along a sidewalk, stood on either side of Defendant, and began asking Defendant questions, all without any reasonable suspicion of his involvement in any criminal activity; and (2) the officers' discovery of an outstanding arrest warrant during the unlawful detention did not purge the taint of Defendant's unlawful detention. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with felony possession of marijuana. Defendant sought to suppress the marijuana as the fruit of an unlawful detention. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant as charged. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress and Defendant's conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, the district court's suppression ruling, and Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the two law enforcement officers who arrested Defendant after what began as a voluntary encounter unlawfully detained Defendant when they retained his identification card and ran a warrants check without reasonable suspicion of his involvement in criminal activity; and (2) under the facts of this case, the officers' discovery of Defendant's outstanding arrest warrant did not sufficiently purge the taint of his unlawful detention. Remanded. View "State v. Moralez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was charged with and convicted of two counts of felony theft based on his admission that he grabbed a bank bag and a purse from a counter in a restaurant and fled with the stolen items. Defendant appealed, arguing that the two theft convictions violated federal and state constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy because one of his two felony theft convictions was multiplicitous. The Supreme Court (1) reversed one of Defendant's theft convictions as multiplicitous, holding that, under the State v. Schoonover analysis, there was only one unit of prosecution under the theft statute, and the second conviction was multiplicitous; and (2) affirmed the use of criminal history in Defendant's sentence. Remanded. View "State v. Hood" on Justia Law