Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Twenty-eight years ago, Defendant Randall Murray was convicted of aggravated robbery and felony murder. Before Murray's jury trial, defense counsel filed a motion to determine Murray's competency under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. The district court found good cause for Murray to undergo a competency evaluation, but the record was silent as to whether a post-evaluation competency hearing was ever held. In 2009, Murray filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he did not receive the required competency hearing, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him. The district court summarily denied Murray's motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Murray did or did not receive the competency hearing. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

Cherish McCullough and LaShonda Callaway got into a fistfight at a convenience store. After other store patrons broke up the fight, McCullough went to her car, returned with a knife, maneuvered around another person, and fatally stabbed Callaway in the abdomen. McCullough was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. At issue on appeal was whether the jury should have been instructed on self-defense. Under Kansas law, if McCullough willingly engaged in mutual combat she would not be entitled to claim self-defense unless she made a good-faith withdrawal and did everything within her power to avoid the killing. The Supreme Court affirmed McCullough's conviction, holding that because McCullough reengaged the conflict by returning to the store with a knife, she was not entitled to a self-defense instruction. View "State v. McCullough" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicki Johnson was inside her boyfriend's apartment when police officers were dispatched to the apartment on a report of a burglary in progress. When officer Shannon Tucker was questioning Johnson in the kitchen, Johnson reached inside her pursue for cigarettes. Tucker grabbed the pack of cigarettes, looked inside, and discovered a glass pipe. This led Tucker to thoroughly search Johnson's purse, where he found cocaine. Johnson was ultimately convicted of possession of cocaine. Johnson appealed, challenging the existence of reasonable suspicion to justify continuation of her investigatory detention and the officer safety-based seizure and search of the cigarette pack. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Tucker was not permitted to search the pack of cigarettes after removing it from Johnson's control because any threat was neutralized by seizure of the pack. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once Tucker secured the pack of cigarettes, any threat its contents may have posed was eliminated and no further search was permitted. Remanded. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant Roldolfo Gaona was convicted of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy for incidents involving his stepdaughter, M.L. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in allowing the executive director of Finding Words of Kansas to testify as an expert about the behavior of child victims of sexual abuse, but the error was harmless; (2) the district judge did not err by failing to give a lesser included instruction on attempted aggravated criminal sodomy; (3) it was not error to exclude Gaona's medical records; (4) no cumulative error required reversal of Gaona's convictions; and (5) Gaona was not entitled to vacation of his sentence. View "State v. Gaona" on Justia Law

Defendant Jeffrey Raskie was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence for one offense and sixty-one months for the other. Raskie appealed, attacking his convictions on several grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed Raskie's convictions and vacated Raskie's hard twenty-five life sentence, holding (1) Raskie either failed to preserve or waived his evidentiary arguments; (2) the district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment of acquittal or in giving a certain instruction to the jury; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct by making comments during closing argument about Raskie's lurid intent, but this error did not warrant reversal of Raskie's convictions; and (4) the district court failed to make adequate findings and conclusions of law on the issue of whether Raskie's hard twenty-five sentence violated that Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights or the Eighth Amendment. Remanded for consideration of Raskie's motion regarding the constitutionality of his sentence. View "State v. Raskie" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Clifford O'Rear of one count of reckless aggravated battery. O'Rear appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to show that he acted recklessly in intentionally shooting the victim. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the evidence established that O'Rear intentionally shot a gun at the center mass of the victim, and thus, O'Rear intended the conduct of shooting and the result of causing injury; and (2) even though O'Rear mistook the facts and acted under the mistaken and unreasonable belief that he needed to defend himself or others, those facts did not change the intentional nature of O'Rear's action to shoot and disable the victim. View "State v. O'Rear" on Justia Law

Dana Deal was convicted for unintentional but reckless second-degree murder in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3402(b) for the death of Donald Irvin. Deal appealed, arguing (1) the evidence established that he intentionally hit Irvin with a metal tire iron and Irvin died as a result of these intentionally inflicted blows, and (2) because he acted intentionally in inflicting those blows, he could not be guilty of unintentional but reckless second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed Deal's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 21-3402 focuses culpability on whether a killing is intentional, not on whether a deliberate and voluntary act leads to death; and (2) in this case, there was evidence that Deal did not intend to kill Irvin, and this evidence was sufficient to support the jury's determination that Deal committed an unintentional but reckless second-degree murder. View "State v. Deal" on Justia Law

A state trooper arrested Lindsay May for driving under the influence. May agreed to submit to a breath test, but her initial efforts failed to provide an adequate breath sample. After the trooper informed her that the insufficient breath sample constituted a test refusal under Kansas law, May requested an opportunity to retake the breath test. The trooper denied the request. At trial, the district court found that May had validly rescinded her her test refusal and suppressed any evidence of a test refusal or of the test result on the insufficient sample. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that May effected a valid rescission of her constructive test refusal, and therefore, the district court was correct in suppressing the evidence. View "State v. May" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Theodore Burnett of capital murder and aggravated kidnapping for his role in the kidnapping and murder of a pregnant fourteen-year-old. After the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict in the penalty phase of the trial regarding imposition of the death penalty, the sentencing court imposed a life sentence with no possibility of parole on the capital murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Burnett's argument that the verdict forms used in the penalty phase of the trial insufficiently protected his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy in any future prosecution was not ripe for appellate review; (2) the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct by making certain comments during closing argument; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting autopsy photographs and in instructing that another trial would be a burden on both sides; and (4) the Court had no jurisdiction to address Burnett's challenge to his presumptive sentence for his kidnapping conviction. View "State v. Burnett" on Justia Law

Jamaal Summers was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years and lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed Summers' convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) admitting statements Summers made to police during an interview at his father's house; (2) allowing the victim's wife and neighbor to testify that the victim told them his friend, Homie, was coming over that evening; and (3) handling the prosecutor's inappropriate question during cross-examination of a defense witness by sustaining defense counsel's objection to the question, thus curing any possible prejudice. The Court then vacated the portion of Summers' sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that the trial court did not have the authority to order a term of postrelease supervision in conjunction with an off-grid, indeterminate life sentence. View "State v. Summers" on Justia Law