Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Kameron King was convicted of possession of cocaine and failure to display a drug tax stamp. King was sentenced to thirty-four months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the officer who arrested King had authority to arrest him on the enclosed porch that was part of his home, and the officer had authority to arrest him for a misdemeanor committed two weeks before; and (2) it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of three witnesses, as the evidence was relevant, admissible, and noncumulative and was an integral part of Defendant's theory of defense. Because the error was not harmless, the Court reversed King's convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Marcy Carapezza and Jason Hughes (collectively, Defendants) were convicted of felony murder and other felonies. Following decisions by the Supreme Court remanding the cases for new trials, the district court suppressed certain evidence as being derived from Defendants' immunized inquisition testimony. The State took interlocutory appeals from the district court's suppression orders, contending that the court applied an incorrect burden of proof and that the State did not make an improper use of the immunized statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was unnecessary to determine the standard of proof to be applied to the derivative use of immunized testimony because, under either standard, the government failed to meet its burden of proving that it had not made a derivative use of Defendants' immunized statements. View "State v. Carapezza" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Elgin Robinson of capital murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and violation of a protection from abuse order. The 14-year-old victim of Robinson's crimes, C.B., was nine months pregnant with Robinson's child at the time of her murder. The district court sentenced Robinson to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Robinson's convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Robinson's motion to suppress evidence of Internet searches he conducted prior to the murder in which he searched for information on how to kill a baby and how to find a missing person; (2) denying Robinson's motion to suppress statements he made in a custodial interview regarding his knowledge of C.B.'s disappearance and murder; (3) admitting hearsay statements of C.B., although the court admitted them for the wrong reason; (4) admitting photographs of C.B.'s body and grave; (5) denying Robinson's motion for a change of judge; and (6) instructing the jury on the State's burden of proof. Additionally, the Court held that Robinson was not entitled to be resentenced under the identical offense doctrine. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

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