Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of rape of a child under the age of fourteen and sentenced to a lifetime sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant was not denied his statutory right to a unanimous verdict because the jury instruction did not present alternative means of committing the crime of rape requiring the State to present sufficient evidence of each means; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence Defendant's statement to law enforcement officers, as substantial competent evidence support the trial court's finding that the statement was voluntarily made; and (3) Defendant's argument that the trial court erred in the admission of certain evidence was not preserved for appeal. The Court, however, vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by applying the wrong legal standard when denying Defendant's motion for departure from the statutory sentence, and this error was not harmless. View "State v. Randolph" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder and rape and sentenced to a life sentence without parole for the murder conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred in allowing numerous photographs into evidence and by failing to instruct the jury on felony murder as a lesser included offense of capital murder, and (2) due to prosecutorial misconduct, he was denied a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court acted within its discretion in admitting the disputed photographs into evidence at Defendant's trial; (2) the district court's failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on felony murder did not constitute clear error; and (3) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during his closing argument. View "State v. Mireles" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed, contending (1) the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence she claimed portrayed her as a bad mother and of low moral character; (2) the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by commenting in closing statements regarding the aforementioned evidence; and (3) the prosecution violated Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-447(a) which prohibits proof of a character trait by specific conduct. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) several of Defendant's arguments failed because Defendant failed to make specific and timely objections to the testimony she challenged on appeal; (2) the court of appeals did not err in its determination that the trial court's erroneous admission of testimony regarding Defendant's child visitation arrangements was harmless and the prosecutor's unanswered question regarding whether the children were in "good shape" when they were returned to their father was harmless; and (3) the court of appeals correctly held that Defendant failed to preserve her last argument regarding the alleged violation of section 60-447 for appeal. View "State v. Huffmier" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted a testifying law enforcement officer to sit at the prosecution's table during trial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting a testifying law enforcement officer to remain in the courtroom despite a sequestration order; (3) however, the officer's presence at counsel table and in the courtroom did not prejudice Defendant; and (4) the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to present his theory of defense by refusing to allow defense counsel to introduce evidence of an accomplice's prior felony conviction. View "State v. Sampson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) with a blood-alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. The DUI charge resulted from a sobriety checkpoint at which Defendant failed field sobriety tests and the ensuing Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish any abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case because the arresting officer destroyed his field notes and failed to preserve the breath sample from the Intoxilyzer 5000 test; (2) the district court did not err in failing to suppress the results of Defendant's breath tests; and (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses by admitting KDHE certification evidence without the testimony of the person certifying those records. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the items found in his vehicle, challenging the validity of the stop and the officer's vehicle search incident to the arrest. The district court denied Defendant's suppression motion and later convicted Defendant as charged. After Defendant was convicted, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which rendered the search illegal. The court of appeals refused to apply State v. Daniel, which applied a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for pre-Gant searches conducted under the then-existing authority of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2501(c), and suppressed the drug evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Daniel controlled the outcome in this case, and the good-faith exception applied; and (2) therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. Remanded. View "State v. Dennis" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with several drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the gun and drug evidence found in his apartment, arguing that the smell of burning marijuana did not provide exigent circumstances justifying a police officer's warrantless and forced entry into his apartment. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The district court subsequently convicted Defendant of all the charges except misdemeanor marijuana possession. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that the plain view exception justified the seizure, inexplicably finding that Defendant had not argued that the officer created the exigency . The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Defendant clearly argued to both lower courts that the police officer's actions created the exigency, which the officer then used to justify his use of force and warrantless entry to the apartment; and (2) because the officer's conduct preceding the exigency was unreasonable, the officer violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore could not rely upon the exigent circumstances exception to justify his warrantless entry into Defendant's apartment. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated criminal sodomy. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, remanded a portion of Defendant's sentence for additional findings, and vacated the electronic monitoring and no contact conditions elements of Defendant's sentence, holding (1) aggravated criminal sodomy, as charged and instructed in this case, did not present an alternative means issue; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt; (3) the sentencing court erred by imposing electronic monitoring and an order for no contact with the victim; and (4) the sentencing court erred in imposing BID attorney feeds without considering Defendant's ability to pay. Remanded. View "State v. Smyser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made during a police interrogation in which he admitted that he participated in the robbery. The district court found that the totality of the circumstances established that Defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily given. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the manner in which Defendant's confession to robbery was obtained was unconstitutionally infirm because the law enforcement officers' coercive tactics and promises of leniency rendered the confession involuntary. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor committed misconduct during rebuttal closing argument by encouraging the jury to return to the jury room and take a poll to determine whether any of them had engaged in conduct similar to the allegations against Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor's statements during rebuttal were so patently egregious and prejudicial as to constitute misconduct and deprive Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Stimec" on Justia Law