Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State charged Defendant with several drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the gun and drug evidence found in his apartment, arguing that the smell of burning marijuana did not provide exigent circumstances justifying a police officer's warrantless and forced entry into his apartment. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The district court subsequently convicted Defendant of all the charges except misdemeanor marijuana possession. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that the plain view exception justified the seizure, inexplicably finding that Defendant had not argued that the officer created the exigency . The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Defendant clearly argued to both lower courts that the police officer's actions created the exigency, which the officer then used to justify his use of force and warrantless entry to the apartment; and (2) because the officer's conduct preceding the exigency was unreasonable, the officer violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore could not rely upon the exigent circumstances exception to justify his warrantless entry into Defendant's apartment. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated criminal sodomy. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, remanded a portion of Defendant's sentence for additional findings, and vacated the electronic monitoring and no contact conditions elements of Defendant's sentence, holding (1) aggravated criminal sodomy, as charged and instructed in this case, did not present an alternative means issue; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt; (3) the sentencing court erred by imposing electronic monitoring and an order for no contact with the victim; and (4) the sentencing court erred in imposing BID attorney feeds without considering Defendant's ability to pay. Remanded. View "State v. Smyser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made during a police interrogation in which he admitted that he participated in the robbery. The district court found that the totality of the circumstances established that Defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily given. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the manner in which Defendant's confession to robbery was obtained was unconstitutionally infirm because the law enforcement officers' coercive tactics and promises of leniency rendered the confession involuntary. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor committed misconduct during rebuttal closing argument by encouraging the jury to return to the jury room and take a poll to determine whether any of them had engaged in conduct similar to the allegations against Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor's statements during rebuttal were so patently egregious and prejudicial as to constitute misconduct and deprive Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Stimec" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor misstated the law on premeditation during closing arguments, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence that his wife filed for divorce in the weeks prior to her murder; (3) Defendant was entitled to copies of certain discovery under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3212 and Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3213, and the district court erred to the extent it held that section 22-3212 and section 22-3213 do not authorize a defendant to have personal copies of discovery and witness statements, but the error was harmless; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this case necessitating reversal. View "State v. Marks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence, holding (1) the jury instructions did not present alternative means of committing the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child; (2) the reasonable doubt instruction in this case was not erroneous; (3) the sentencing court erred in imposing lifetime electronic monitoring as a condition of Defendant's sentence; and (4) the sentencing journal entry incorrectly reflected that the sentencing court imposed postrelease supervision rather than parole. Remanded. View "State v. Waggoner" on Justia Law

Defendant pled nolo contendere to one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. At sentencing, the district court granted a downward departure to a sixty months' prison term and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. Defendant appealed the portion of his sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision, contending that the sentence was durationally disproportional in violation of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding that the sentence in this case was not unconstitutionally disproportionate to (1) the nature of the case and the character of the offender; (2) the sentences imposed for other crimes in Kansas; and (3) the punishments imposed in other jurisdictions for the same offense. View "State v. Toahty-Harvey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during voir dire by using a "Wheel of Fortune" game show analogy while questioning jurors about their understanding of the concept of reasonable doubt, although the Court discouraged the used of the "Wheel of Fortune" analogy; (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's requested instruction defining the phrase "reasonable doubt"; and (3) the trial court did not err in giving an instruction that was based on Pattern Instructions for Kansas Crim. 3d 51.10. View "State v. Stevenson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to aggravated criminal sodomy, an off-grid crime. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of life without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. The court also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision. Defendant challenged both aspects of his sentence, arguing that his prison sentence and postrelease supervision term were disproportionate to his crime and were thus unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part Defendant's sentence, holding (1) Defendant failed to show his prison sentence was unconstitutional; and (2) the portion of the sentencing imposing lifetime postrelease supervision upon Defendant was illegal. View "State v. Rogers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The court departed from the usual Jessica's Law life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years and imposed an aggregate sentence of 214 months. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court improperly influenced the jury and denied him a fair trial when it allowed a six-year-old child to testify against him with her school counselor sitting next to her without the court first making findings that the procedure was necessary. The Supreme Court affirmed after offering guidelines for other district courts to consider in making similar determinations, holding (1) because the district court provided reasons for its decision to permit the support person, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the support person to accompany the child during testimony at trial; (2) the district court erred in giving an Allen-type instruction, but the error was harmless; and (3) the court did not err in sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Rochelle" on Justia Law