Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the district court erred when it refused to grant a mistrial after a witness claimed to have "double memories" and gave premeditation jury instructions; (2) the district court did not err when it included additional language in the general Pattern Instructions for Kansas defining premeditation; and (3) premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder are not identical offenses, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5402(a)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings above.On appeal, Defendant argued that the voir dire proceedings were closed to his family members and that not providing space for spectators violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that the voir dire proceeding was open was reasonable and supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to admit certain testimony; and (3) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were not properly before the Supreme Court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results obtained under the implied consent statute, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the district court to consider the results of Defendant's blood test.Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test results as unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the good faith exception applied to the results of Defendant's blood test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon its decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019), in which the Court held that the good-faith exception applies to breath tests for blood alcohol content collected under the unconstitutional implied consent statute; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "State v. Heim" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results, which presumptively showed that Defendant was guilty of driving under the influence, holding that Defendant did not persuade the Court to abandon its recent decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019).On appeal, Defendant argued that his warrantless blood test obtained under the implied consent statute was unconstitutional based either on consent or as a search incident to arrest. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that the district court properly considered the results of Defendant's blood test under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon Perkins; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "City of Kingman v. Ary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress all evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of his apartment, holding that Kansas law does not foreclose consent through nonverbal conduct.Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he did not validly consent to the warrantless search of his apartment because he did not verbally agree to let the officers enter. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant had affirmatively communicated to the officers that they could enter his apartment. At issue on appeal was whether nonverbal conduct can establish valid consent. The Supreme Court held that it can, holding (1) an individual may express valid consent through words, acts, or conduct, and an individual's nonverbal conduct can be relevant in determining whether this standard has been met; and (2) the matter must be remanded for a new hearing under the appropriate legal standards. View "State v. Daino" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop and a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.Defendant was the front seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by officers for a traffic violation. Officers began removing the vehicle's occupants to facilitate a drug dog sniff, called for because of the nature of the stop and the officers' previous knowledge of Defendant. Officers observed drug paraphernalia in Defendant's immediate vicinity and called off the dog sniff before it began. Thereafter, a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle disclosed controlled substances. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers detained the vehicle's occupants longer than lawfully permitted to accommodate the drug dog sniff. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's findings, and those findings supported the district court's legal conclusions. View "State v. Lutz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of criminal conduct, including attempted capital murder, holding that a single error occurred in the proceedings below, and the error was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no support for Defendant's claims that the district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations and imposed consecutive sentences as "the product of judicial vindictiveness"; (2) the prosecutor made an incorrect statement during closing arguments, but the State met its burden to demonstrate that the error did not affect the trial's outcome beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the district court did not err in its response to a jury question. View "State v. Bowser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals panel that used a harmless error analysis to save a district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea even though the panel concluded that the court applied the wrong legal standard, holding the court of appeals erred in engaging in a harmless error analysis under the circumstances.Defendant pleaded no contest to robbery and aggravated assault. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. The panel concluded that the district court erred in using the Strickland test rather than the "lackluster advocacy" standard specified in State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010) but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the analysis of the court of appeals was incorrect. View "State v. Herring" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of aggravated robbery, holding that the court of appeals did not err in holding that the convictions would not result in a subsequent prosecution and that Defendant was not twice put in jeopardy.Defendant took the property of three individuals in one incident. Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft, each count relating to a different victim. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State divided one criminal offense into three crimes in violation of double jeopardy protections. The court of appeals reversed Defendant's theft conviction and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the charges arose from unitary conduct; (2) the State did not violate double jeopardy protection by prosecuting Defendant a second time for aggravated robbery after his theft conviction had been affirmed; and (3) Defendant's aggravated robbery convictions were not multiplicitous. View "State v. Dale" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, on judicial review under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1020(p) of a hearing officer's order suspending a driver's license, a court may consider any constitutional issue, including the lawfulness of the law enforcement encounter, and that, under section 8-1020(o)-(q), a court may set aside a driver's license suspension order if the driver meets the burden of establishing that the encounter was unlawful.Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. When Defendant refused to provide a breath sample his driver's license was suspended. A district court judge set aside the suspension based on his determination that the law enforcement encounter was unlawful. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stop was unlawful and violated Defendant's constitutional rights, and therefore, the district court did not err in setting aside the suspension of Defendant's driver's license. View "Jarvis v. Kansas Department of Revenue" on Justia Law