Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Defendant of, among other crimes, capital murder and four counts of attempted capital murder. Defendant was sentenced to death on the capital offense. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for capital murder and attempted capital murder and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court's decision to allow the State's psychiatric expert to testify based on his court-ordered mental examination of Defendant, when Defendant had not waived his privilege under the Fifth Amendment in that examination by presenting a mental disease or defect defense at trial, violated Defendant's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (2) this constitutional error could not be declared harmless. View "State v. Cheever" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen and lewd and lascivious behavior in the presence of a person under the age of sixteen. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the court imposed a term of lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision, and otherwise affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) a statute, and any instruction that incorporates it, must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime in order to qualify for an alternative means analysis and application of the super-sufficiency requirement; (2) accordingly, Defendant's jury was not presented with alternative means on the charges against him; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to reopen its case-in-chief to present evidence of Defendant's age; (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct, but the misconduct was harmless; and (5) the trial court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant was a personal care attendant for a Medicaid beneficiary. Appellant was later charged with Medicaid fraud for submitting a false claim for his services. After a bench trial Appellant was convicted under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3846(a)(1) for defrauding the Medicaid program. The court of appeals reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the complaint charged that Appellant submitted statements for services he did not provide while the evidence at trial established that Appellant actually did provide the services for which he submitted statements. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for Medicaid fraud. View "State v. McWilliams" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded nolo contendere to reckless aggravated battery. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw plea, arguing that holding him to his plea would be manifest injustice. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court may have relied upon State v. Ford, whose insistence on an allegation of innocence in a presentencing plea withdrawal motion had been rejected by the Supreme Court; and (2) his prior convictions were used improperly to increase his sentence because they were not proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) it was unclear whether the district judge relied upon that part of Ford that had been disapproved; and (2) Defendant's second argument had no merit. Remanded for a new hearing to consider Defendant's motion under the appropriate legal standard. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder for the shooting death of Raymond Gutierrez. The trial court imposed a life sentence without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that Defendant's tenth grade education was obtained through special education classes rather than regular classes, as Defendant did not offer any evidence or testimony that completion of the tenth grade in special education classes as opposed to any other classes had any bearing on his behavior; and (2) any error in the admission of Defendant's statements to police officers the night of the shooting was harmless. View "State v. Cline" on Justia Law

This appeal arose under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA). A civil jury declared Robert Ontiberos a sexually violent predator and determined he should be committed for treatment until he was safe for release. The court of appeals vacated the commitment and remanded for a new trial because it held that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State's attorney committed misconduct during the trial. The panel rejected Ontiberos' claim that the KSVPA was unconstitutional. Both sides petitioned for review with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because due process guarantees a person facing civil commitment under the KSVPA a right to counsel at trial, and because that person may challenge the effectiveness of his or her trial counsel on direct appeal or under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1501, Ontiberos' constitutional claim lacked merit; but (2) Ontiberos' trial counsel was ineffective, and the State committed misconduct. Remanded for a new trial. View "In re Care & Treatment of Ontiberos" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to aggravated robbery after he and two other individuals participated in the armed seizure of one vehicle and the attempted armed seizure of another vehicle. Defendant contended that the district court and Court of Appeals erred in requiring him to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act because the definition of an "offender" under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4902(a)(7) did not include unarmed accomplices such as himself. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The district court affirmed, holding that, pursuant to the language of the statute, an unarmed accomplice is required to register as an offender under section 22-4901(a)(7). View "State v. Nambo" on Justia Law

Defendant James Mossman appealed from the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision following his conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant contended lifetime postrelease supervision constituted cruel and/or unusual punishment in violation of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence to lifetime postrelease supervision under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3717(d)(1)(G), holding that the sentence was not disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime, was not grossly disproportionate to the sentences imposed for other crimes in Kansas or similar crimes in other states, and was not categorically unconstitutional. View "State v. Mossman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of rape and one count of aggravated criminal sodomy, both class B felonies. Under the indeterminate sentencing scheme then in effect, class B felonies required a minimum prison term of between five and fifteen years and a maximum term of twenty years to life. Because Defendant had a prior conviction, the court sentenced Defendant to thirty years to life on his rape conviction and ten to forty years for his aggravated criminal sodomy conviction. The court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Later, the district court summarily denied Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district district court did not err in summarily denying Defendant's motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel; and (2) Defendant did not receive an illegal sentence. View "State v. Heronemus" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of burglary of a nonresidence, criminal damage to property, and obstruction of a legal duty. The strongest evidence against Defendant was an eyewitness' identification of Defendant as the burglar. On appeal Defendant raised two issues related to the eyewitness' identification. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) a prosecutor can commit prejudicial misconduct when respondent to comments by defense counsel, but under the facts of this case, any misconduct committed by the prosecutor in commenting about the eyewitness' credibility was harmless; and (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that a contested instruction on eyewitness identification was clearly erroneous. View "State v. Marshall" on Justia Law