Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal threat. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court accepted review to address Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor committed three separate acts of prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court of appeals applied the prosecutorial misconduct standard as explained in State v. Tosh in rejecting Defendant’s contentions of prosecutorial misconduct. Before the Supreme Court Defendant argued that this traditional multi-prong test was flawed because it leaves open the possibility the misconduct affected the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s criticism of the traditional prosecutorial misconduct standard was unwarranted; and (2) the court of appeals correctly found that there was no merit to two of Defendant’s misconduct claims, and the prosecutor’s misconduct in using a jigsaw puzzle analogy during voir dire and closing arguments did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to hard twenty-five life sentences imposed under Jessica’s Law. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to give a unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in handling Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a law enforcement officer’s violation of an order in limine when the officer volunteered that Defendant invoked his postarrest right to remain silent and described the circumstances of that invocation because Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the officer’s testimony; and (3) the cumulative impact of these errors substantially prejudiced Defendant’s right to a fair trial.View "State v. Santos-Vega" on Justia Law

A petition to convene a citizen-initiated grand jury alleged wrongdoing by the officers and directors of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Unified Government). The grand jury returned an indictment charging Rodney Turner, an attorney who did consulting and legal work for BPU, with two counts of theft and fifty-five counts of presenting a false claim. Turner moved to dismiss the indictment for grand jury abuse and violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Turner did not possess the full panoply of constitutional rights at the investigatory proceedings by the grand jury and that the constitutional violations that did occur during the proceedings did not prejudice him. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment, holding that the record established grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of abuses of process and constitutional violations caused by the State’s agents during the grand jury proceedings. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of the social guest of Defendant’s girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the district court’s admission of and failure to give limiting instructions on evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs was harmless; (2) the district court correctly refused to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no prosecutorial misconduct arising from references to school shootings during closing argument; and (4) Defendant received a fair trial untainted by cumulative error. View "State v. Story" on Justia Law

A bullet fatally wounded a man sitting inside the house of Defendant's neighbor. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Defendant was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after twenty years for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting prior shooting evidence; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements to police; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of a locked storage area of Defendant’s residence. View "State v. Richard" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with five drug- and firearm-related felonies after a law enforcement officer stopped him for driving a vehicle with a defective headlight and arrested him when he could not produce proof of insurance. The district court concluded that the evidence seized from Defendant’s automobile in the warrantless search incident to his arrest should be suppressed. The court of appeals reversed the suppression ruling. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal because the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle for evidence incident to his arrest was conducted at a time when searches incident to arrest were governed in the state by statute, and the statute in effect at the time the search at issue was conducted did not authorize searches for the purpose of discovering evidence. View "State v. Julian" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years for his rape of a child conviction and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for both convictions. Defendant appealed the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sexual exploitation sentence. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the sexual exploitation sentence, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (2) vacated sua sponte the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Defendant’s rape sentence, holding that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision for Defendant’s rape conviction as part of sentencing him to an off-grid indeterminate life sentence.View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated arson. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to the three charges. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to show that manifest injustice would result if he was unable to withdraw his pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to inquire explicitly at Defendant’s plea hearing about promises made to Defendant; (2) Defendant’s defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) the record did not support Defendant’s assertion that he did not understand the meaning and consequences of a no contest plea.View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and sexual exploitation of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions but vacated Appellant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence Appellant’s prior conviction for indecent liberties with a child and two home videotapes; (2) the district court issued an erroneous limiting instruction, but the instruction was not clearly erroneous; (3) Appellant waived his allegation of error on Confrontation Clause grounds by failing to timely and specifically object on that basis; (4) the prosecutor improperly speculated on facts not in evidence during his rebuttal closing argument, but the error did not require reversal; and (5) the sentencing court improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence instead of departing to a guidelines sentence after granting Appellant’s motion to depart. Remanded.View "State v. Dean" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, the alternative charge of second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. Defendant raised several issues on appeal, including an allegation that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the withdrawal of his pro se in pro se motion for new counsel without making a sufficient inquiry into the circumstances prompting the motion. The Supreme Court remanded on this issue, holding that the district court erred in not inquiring before allowing the apparently nonconsensual withdrawal of Defendant’s pro se motion for new counsel. The Court also remanded for a nunc pro tunc order correcting the severity level of Defendant’s second-degree murder conviction. The Court rejected Defendant’s remaining claims of error. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law