Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor misstated the law on premeditation during closing arguments, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence that his wife filed for divorce in the weeks prior to her murder; (3) Defendant was entitled to copies of certain discovery under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3212 and Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3213, and the district court erred to the extent it held that section 22-3212 and section 22-3213 do not authorize a defendant to have personal copies of discovery and witness statements, but the error was harmless; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this case necessitating reversal. View "State v. Marks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence, holding (1) the jury instructions did not present alternative means of committing the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child; (2) the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous; (3) the sentencing court erred in imposing lifetime electronic monitoring as a condition of Defendant's sentence; and (4) the sentencing journal entry incorrectly reflected that the sentencing court imposed postrelease supervision rather than parole. Remanded. View "State v. Waggoner" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. At sentencing, the district court granted a downward departure to a sixty months' prison term and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. Defendant appealed the portion of his sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision, contending that the sentence was durationally disproportional in violation of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence in this case was not unconstitutionally disproportionate to (1) the nature of the case and the character of the offender; (2) the sentences imposed for other crimes in Kansas; and (3) the punishments imposed in other jurisdictions for the same offense. View "State v. Toahty-Harvey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during voir dire by using a "Wheel of Fortune" game show analogy while questioning jurors about their understanding of the concept of reasonable doubt, although the Court discouraged the used of the "Wheel of Fortune" analogy; (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's requested instruction defining the phrase "reasonable doubt"; and (3) the trial court did not err in giving an instruction that was based on Pattern Instructions for Kansas Crim. 3d 51.10. View "State v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated criminal sodomy, an off-grid crime. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. The court also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. Defendant challenged both aspects of his sentence, arguing that his prison sentence and postrelease supervision term were disproportionate to his crime and were thus unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part Defendant's sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to show his prison sentence was unconstitutional; and (2) the portion of the sentencing imposing lifetime postrelease supervision upon Defendant was illegal. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The court departed from the usual Jessica's Law life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years and imposed an aggregate sentence of 214 months. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court improperly influenced the jury and denied him a fair trial when it allowed a six-year-old child to testify against him with her school counselor sitting next to her without the court first making findings that the procedure was necessary. The Supreme Court affirmed after offering guidelines for other district courts to consider in making similar determinations, holding (1) because the district court provided reasons for its decision to permit the support person, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the support person to accompany the child during testimony at trial; (2) the district court erred in giving an Allen-type instruction, but the error was harmless; and (3) the court did not err in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Rochelle" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the premeditated first-degree murder of Joseph Beier. Defendant admitted to shooting Beier during a bar fight but appealed his conviction on several grounds. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial without addressing all of Defendant's arguments, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence of premeditation for first-degree premeditated murder; but (2) the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, as Defendant's testimony and his theory of defense supported the requested instruction, and the error was not harmless in this circumstance. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to void judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-260(b)(4), claiming that the district court's refusal to give his requested lesser included offense instructions on the felony-murder charge rendered void his conviction and sentence for that charge. The district court summarily denied Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 60-260(b)(4) does not provide a procedure for a criminal defendant to obtain postconviction relief from his conviction or sentence, and therefore, Defendant sought a remedy under section 60-260(b)(4) to which he was not entitled, and the district court was correct to deny the motion. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to the off-grid person felony of rape (sexual intercourse with a child under fourteen years old) and the off-grid person felony of aggravated criminal sodomy (sodomy with a child under fourteen years old). The district court imposed sentences totaling 310 months for Defendant's Jessica's Law convictions. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentences and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant's sentence for his rape conviction was illegal because the district court did not follow statutory authority in imposing the departure sentence; and (2) the State was not required to prove Defendant's criminal history score to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and one count of lewd and lascivious behavior. The district court imposed a sentence of twenty-five years to life under Jessica's Law. The court imposed concurrent sentences of varying lengths for the three remaining convictions. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentence of twenty-five years to life was unconstitutional because it was cruel or unusual punishment and that it was contrary to statute. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence, concluding (1) the sentence was constitutional and was not contrary to statute, as the legislature intended individuals convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child be eligible for parole after twenty-five years; but (2) the district court improperly sentenced Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision instead of parole. View "State v. Conrad" on Justia Law