Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. He was taken to the county jail, where he read an implied consent advisory advising him of the consequences if he refused to consent to a breath-alcohol test. Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence of his breath test results, contending that his consent to the test was not voluntary, and therefore, the test violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search. The district court concluded that Defendant’s consent to the breath test was not freely and voluntarily given. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s consent was involuntary because it was obtained by means of an inaccurate and coercive advisement and, therefore, the district court correctly suppressed Defendant’s breath-alcohol test results. View "State v. Nece" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence, refusing to submit to an evidentiary test under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025, and related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or suppress evidence, arguing that section 8-1025, which criminalized his refusal to submit to a breath test, was unconstitutional. The district court concluded that section 8-1025 was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and also imposed an unconstitutional condition on the privilege to drive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 8-1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional. View "State v. Wycoff" on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was the statewide directive issued by David Harper, the Director of Property Valuation, to county appraisers requiring compliance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-1460. Under the statute, when a property owner successfully appeals a property valuation, the valuation may not be increased during the next two years unless certain conditions are met. In general, all other taxable real property is reappraised at fair market value annually. Petitioners, twenty-one boards of county commissioners, filed this original action in mandamus to challenge the constitutionality of section 79-1460 and Harper’s directive. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, holding (1) the statute is unconstitutional to the extent it prevents appraisers from valuing real property at its fair market value in any tax year; and (2) the constitutionally offending provisions are severable from the remainder of the statute. View "Bd. of Johnson County Comm'rs v. Jordan" on Justia Law

Paul Sykes was convicted of burglary and aggravated sexual battery. Prior to the expiration of his sentence, the State filed a petition seeking to have Sykes adjudicated a sexually violent predator. Although Sykes was found incompetent to assist in his own defense, the district court ultimately ruled Sykes was a sexually violent predator and ordered him committed. The court of appeals affirmed. Sykes appealed, arguing that due process requires that a respondent be mentally competent to assist in his or her own defense in order to be civilly adjudicated a sexually violent predator. The Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication, holding that a respondent need not be competent to be adjudicated a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act, and therefore, Sykes did not suffer a violation of his due process rights. View "In re Care & Treatment of Sykes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error by the district court in answering a jury question with a written response in violation of Defendant’s right to be present at all critical stages of his trial was harmless; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the submission of a written answer to the jury question violated his right to an impartial judge and public trial; and (3) the district court did not commit clear error in failing to give a jury instruction on a lesser included severity level for the crime of aggravated battery. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

In Gannon I, the Supreme Court confirmed that Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution, which imposes a duty on the legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state,” contains both equity and adequacy requirements. On remand, a three-judge district court panel made various rulings. At issue on appeal was the panel’s holding that the State failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s Gannon I directive on equity due to the 2015 legislature amending capital outlay state aid and supplemental general state aid formulas for fiscal year 2015 and repealing the amended aid formulas for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the panel unnecessarily ordered State officials to be joined as parties; (2) the panel had the authority to review the law changing the entitlements for fiscal years 2016 and 2017; (3) the panel properly concluded that the State failed to cure the inquiries affirmed to exist in Gannon I; (4) Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees; and (5) the panel’s remedy was premature. View "Gannon v. State" on Justia Law

While Defendant was serving a nonprison sentence of probation with community corrections supervision in three cases, the State filed a motion to revoke Defendant’s probation. After a hearing, the district court stated that it would reinstate Defendant on probation with a ninety-day sanction. The court, however, reopened the completed probation revocation hearing based upon Defendant’s subsequent contemptuous act, found Defendant in direct contempt of court, and ordered Defendant to serve his original sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation was based on a ground for which Defendant was not provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in violation of Defendant’s due process rights. Remanded for a new probation revocation hearing. View "State v. Hurley" on Justia Law

Larry Solomon was the chief judge of the Thirtieth Judicial District of Kansas. Judge Solomon was appointed to serve as judge judge in 1991 and has been reappointed continuously through the present. Under Kan. Stat. Ann. 20-329, as amended by section 11 of H.B. 2338, Judge Solomon’s current term will end on January 1, 2016, and under Supreme Court Rule 107(a) his current term will end on December 31, 2015. On February 18, 2015, Judge Solomon filed a petition seeking a declaration that section 11 of H.B. 2338 is an unconstitutional encroachment on the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to administer the judiciary of the state and that if section 11 were declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill could not be saved. The district court granted Judge Solomon’s motion for summary judgment and struck all of H.B. 2338 because of a nonseverability clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 11 of H.B. 2338 is unconstitutional, and Rule 107 remains in full effect. View "Solomon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant’s lawyer subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge denied. Defendant also filed a pro se motion, which the district judge construed as a motion for new trial. In his motion, Defendant argued, in relevant part, that his lawyer had failed to put on evidence in Defendant’s defense. Characterizing Defendant’s arguments as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district judge concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the court of appeals said that Defendant could challenge his trial counsel’s effectiveness through a later motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. Defendant subsequently filed a section 60-1507 motion, arguing that his trial counsel had been ineffective in several respects. After an evidentiary hearing, the district judge denied Defendant relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) conflict existed between Defendant and his lawyer at the hearing on the motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s remaining allegations were without merit. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard fifty sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the sentencing scheme under which Defendant was sentenced has been declared to be unconstitutional, and therefore, Defendant must be resentenced; (2) this was not a multiple acts case requiring a unanimity instruction; (3) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were in error, but the error was harmless; (5) Defendant was not convicted in violation of the corpus delicti rule; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (7) the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a search of Defendant’s outbuilding; and (8) Defendant was not denied a fair trial due to cumulative error. View "State v. Sprague" on Justia Law