Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Kevin Hernandez was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and residential burglary following a jury trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that (1) a comment made by the prosecutor during his closing argument on a matter outside the evidence was in error, but the statement was little more than harmless retrospection that did not contribute to the verdict obtained; and (2) the trial court did not err in concluding there was insufficient evidence to find that Hernandez's mental faculties were so impaired by his consumption of alcohol and marijuana on the night of the murder as to render him unable to form the requisite intent. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

While in the passenger seat of a car registered to the car's driver, Brian Gilbert was approached by a police officer. After learning that Gilbert had an outstanding warrant for his arrest, the officer arrested Gilbert and searched the car, where he discovered drug paraphernalia and drugs. Gilbert was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, Gilbert filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the officer was not authorized to search the vehicle. The district court denied Gilbert's motion to suppress because the statute upon which Gilbert based his argument had been amended at the time of the search. The court then convicted Gilbert as charged. The court of appeals reversed Gilbert's convictions, holding (1) Gilbert had standing to contest the search, and (2) the amended version of the statute was unconstitutional. On review, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Gilbert lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the search under Rakas v. Illinois, which states that a person aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through introduction of evidence obtained by search of a third-person's premises has not had his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. View "State v. Gilbert" on Justia Law

Andre Bailey was convicted of, inter alia, first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Because Bailey was seventeen years old at the time he was charged with the crimes, charges were originally filed with the juvenile court. The State filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347 to have the case transferred to adult court for prosecution. The trial court granted the motion and tried Bailey as an adult. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stipulated facts provided substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision to certify Bailey as an adult for prosecution. The Court also concluded that the trial court did not err in its instructions to the jury, and it was not improper for the trial court to inform two witnesses that they did not have Fifth Amendment privileges. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

James Simmons was convicted of rape and misdemeanor theft following a jury trial. Simmons appealed several issues, including claims of prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court of appeals affirmed Simmons' convictions. The Supreme Court granted review on the prosecutorial misconduct claims only. After conducting a two-step analysis, the Court reversed the convictions, holding (1) the prosecutor's discussion of the Stockholm Syndrome during voir dire constituted misconduct because the prosecutor referred to facts not in evidence; (2) the prosecutor's comment about the victim's behavior in the future during closing arguments constituted misconduct because it was an improper appeal for sympathy; and (3) the two episodes of misconduct combined to constitute misconduct of sufficient magnitude to require reversal and a new trial. Remanded. View "State v. Simmons" on Justia Law

Appellant Raymore Levy was convicted for rape of a child under fourteen years of age, aggravated criminal sodomy of a child under fourteen years of age, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Levy received three life imprisonment sentences, the third sentence running concurrent with the first two. On appeal, Levy argued (1) his sentence was disproportionate in violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment, (2) his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated after a video interview was shown at his preliminary hearing when the child victim was not there to be cross-examined, and (3) both his trial counsel were ineffective, depriving him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding appellant's first two arguments were not properly preserved for appeal and declining to decide the third issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal. View "State v. Levy" on Justia Law

Louie Martin, a convicted felon, was released on postrelease supervision after incarceration. Shortly after his release, the legislature passed an amendment that impacted Martin's previously imposed postrelease expiration date by extending it nearly eleven years. Martin filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against the parole board, claiming that the change in his postincarceration supervision discharge date is an unlawful ex post facto law. The district court dissolved Martin's writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) because the period of parole or postrelease supervision is part of the sentence imposed, a change to that period is a change in punishment for ex post facto considerations; (2) because the amendment is retrospective and changes the term of postrelease supervision, the law violates ex post facto protections if it acts to Martin's detriment; and (3) Martin was clearly disadvantaged by the amendment. Therefore, the amendment is an impermissible ex post facto law as applied to Martin. View "Martin v. Kansas Parole Bd." on Justia Law

In 1999, Melvin Holmes was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because of prosecutorial misconduct at trial. In 2002, a second jury convicted Holmes of the same offenses, and in 2004 the Court affirmed the convictions. In 2007, Holmes filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel during his 2004 appeal. Specifically, Holmes contended appellate counsel failed to (1) raise the issue of ineffective trial counsel, (2) include a videotape and accompanying transcript used by the jury in the appellate record, and (3) file a reply brief or motion for reconsideration. The district court's denied the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Holmes appealed. After dismissing Holmes' first and third arguments, The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on the videotape and transcript issue. The Court directed the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing to inquire about appellate counsel's strategy in not providing the items in the record on appeal, and if the court found appellate counsel's performance was deficient, to inquire whether Holmes was prejudiced to the extent that, but for counsel's failure, Holmes' appeal would have been successful. View "Holmes v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant Robert Campbell was an at-will employee of Appellee Husky Hogs, LLC, for about one year when he brought a complaint with the state Department of Labor. In his complaint, Appellee alleged Husky Hogs was not paying him as required by the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). Appellant was subsequently fired one day after the Department of Labor acknowledged receipt of his claim. The issue for review by the Supreme Court was whether a common-law retaliatory discharge may be brought against an employer when an employee claims he was fired for filing a wage claim act under the KWPA. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Appellant did not make a valid common law retaliation claim but that there were remedies under the KWPA itself. The Supreme Court found that Appellant stated a valid claim for retaliatory discharge, and that the statutory remedies under the KWPA were an insufficient substitute for the common-law remedies. The Court reversed the decision of the district court, and remanded the case for further proceedings.