Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) and driving while suspended (DWS). The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions. Defendant appealed, contending (1) the district court violated his due process rights and his right to present his defense by interfering with a defense witness' decision to testify, (2) DWS is an alternative means crime, and (3) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove the alternative means of committing DUI and DWS. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the district court did not substantially interfere with a defense witness' choice to testify or violate Defendant's constitutional right to present a defense; (2) DWS is not an alternative means crime; and (3) Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567(a) does not contain alternative means of committing DUI, and the State presented sufficient proof to sustain Defendant's conviction for DUI. View "State v. Suter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and felony murder. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district judge erred in admitting evidence of other crimes and in giving a cautionary accomplice witness instruction over a defense objection, (2) the prosecution engaged in misconduct requiring reversal, (3) the cumulative effect of these errors required reversal, and (4) his convictions and sentences were multiplicitous. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting the disputed evidence and in instructing the jury; (2) the prosecutor's repeated references to the "truth" during closing argument did constitute misconduct, but the error was harmless; (3) and Defendant's multiplicity argument was without merit. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The court of appeals affirmed his conviction, concluding that evidence of an attempt to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction. Defendant appealed, claiming that he was deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict because the State charged him with alternative means of committing DUI, the jury was instructed on both means, and the State failed to present sufficient evidence to establish both means on which the jury was instructed. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the court of appeals' determination that the phrase "operate or attempt to operate" in Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1564(a) creates alternative means of committing a crime, thus holding that the State is not required to prove both sets of factual circumstances; and (2) affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the State presented sufficient proof that Defendant operated the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. View "State v. Perkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of DUI. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was deprived of his right to a unanimous jury verdict because the State charged him with, and the jury was instructed on, alternative means of committing DUI, i.e., operating or attempting to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, but the State failed to present evidence sufficient to show he attempted to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed Defendant's DUI conviction but under different reasoning, holding (1) the legislature did not intend the phrase "operate or attempt to operate" to create alternative means of committing the crime of DUI, and the court of appeals erred in finding otherwise; (2) the district court's inclusion of that phrase in the charging instructions in this case did not create a jury unanimity problem; and (3) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Ahrens" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated intimidation of a victim. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. Defendant sought review, claiming that the State erred in failing to present sufficient evidence to support the alternative means of committing the crime of aggravated intimidation of a witness under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3833, and the error required reversal of his conviction for this crime pursuant to State v. Wright. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3832, which defines the crime of intimidation of a witness, does not contain the alternative means alleged by Defendant; (2) the statutory definition of malice does not create alternative means; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to establish that Defendant attempted to prevent or dissuade his victim from reporting his crimes and that he acted with the requisite malice in doing so. View "State v. Aguirre" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of rape, one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, and one count of aggravated endangering a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions and sentences, holding (1) the prosecutor's comments during his closing argument did not improperly prejudice the jury against Appellant as to deny her a fair trial; (2) the jury was not instructed on alternative means of committing aggravated criminal sodomy; (3) the district court properly limited cross-examination of S.W.; (4) the court, by answering a jury question with a written note, did not violate Appellant's constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of her trial; (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion requesting a departure sentence; and (6) the court did not err by setting twenty-five years' imprisonment as the minimum prison term Appellant must serve before becoming eligible for parole. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of two counts of rape and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it denied Appellant's motion to conduct separate trials for him and his codefendant; (2) the court did not err when it denied Appellant's request for a psychological evaluation of S.W., the complaining witness; (3) the court properly limited cross-examination of S.W.; (4) the district court did not err in failing to strike a juror for cause; (5) the court did not err by admitting into evidence three of S.W.'s drawings; (6) the jury was not instructed on alternative means of committing aggravated criminal sodomy; (7) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of the crimes for which he was convicted; (8) the prosecutor's comments during his closing argument did not improperly prejudice the jury against Appellant as to deny him a fair trial; and (9) the district court properly denied Appellant's motion requesting a departure sentence. View "State v. Stafford" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine and failure to stop at a stop sign. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from his person and all statements he made after the evidence was seized, arguing that evidence was derived from an unlawful search of his pockets following a traffic stop. The district court denied the motion, and a judge found Defendant guilty of both counts. The court of appeals found Defendant had failed to preserve the suppression issue for appellate review, and even if the issue had been preserved, there was ample basis for denying the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the search was not consensual under the circumstances and violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches. View "State v. Spagnola" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to felony murder and kidnapping. Defendant appealed his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part and remanded, holding (1) the district court did not err in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision; (2) the district court did not err in requiring Defendant to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act, as nothing in the record suggested Defendant's victim was under eighteen years of age; (3) the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the propriety of Defendant's sixty-one-month sentence for kidnapping because the sentence was considered a presumptive sentence; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Defendant's sentences to run consecutively rather than concurrently. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder for the death of his five-month-old son. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding that the district court judge (1) did not clearly err by failing to instruct sua sponte on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter, as the instructions would not have been factually appropriate at trial; (2) did not clearly err by giving a jury instruction on child abuse; (3) did not err by admitting gruesome autopsy photographs, as the photographs were probative and not unduly prejudicial; and (4) did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law