Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence in part and vacated it in part, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by imposing a hard fifty life sentence for premeditated murder, but the judge lacked statutory authority to change the concurrent nature of the sentences upon remand for resentencing.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of premeditated first-degree murder, arson, and interference with law enforcement. On appeal, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant's hard fifty life sentence for premeditated murder. On remand, the judge again imposed a hard fifty life sentence for premeditated murder. Even though the Supreme Court had not vacated Defendant's sentences for arson and interference with law enforcement the judge reimposed the same terms of imprisonment for those convictions but ran the sentences consecutive to each other and to the hard fifty life sentence, rather than concurrently with each other, as ordered by the first judge. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part and remanded the case for resentencing, holding that the district court exceeded its statutory authority in changing Defendant's sentences for arson and interference with law enforcement from concurrent to consecutive sentences. View "State v. Galloway" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the district court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction DNA testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512, holding that the district court erred in summarily denying the petition after finding that the only evidence in State custody Appellant sought to have tested - the victims' clothing - would not produce exculpatory evidence.After a second trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. In his most recent postconviction motion Appellant petitioned for postconviction DNA testing under section 21-2512, asking for DNA testing of the clothes he wore the day of the murders, the murder weapon, residue from his hands, and the victims' clothing. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed after interpreting section 21-2512 to clarify the procedures and respective burdens of the parties during the pretesting phase of the proceedings, holding that, under the circumstances, a remand for further proceedings was required. View "State v. Angelo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion to modify his sentence under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6628(c), which requires courts to modify sentences if certain sentencing provisions are found to be unconstitutional, holding that Appellant was not entitled to a sentencing modification.In 1999, Appellant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard forty sentence. After a retrial in 2005, Appellant was again convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. Before sentencing, Appellant filed a motion arguing that the hard forty sentencing scheme violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. The sentencing court denied the motion and again imposed a hard forty life sentence. In 2016, after the Supreme Court decided State v. Soto, 322 P.3d 344 (Kan. 2014), Appellant filed a motion for a sentencing modification under section 21-6628(c). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion. View "State v. Albright" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) by failing to register, holding that the legislature's decision to make the crime of failure to register a strict liability felony did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of violating KORA under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4903(a) and (c)(1)(A) based on his failure to report in person during the month of November 2017. On appeal, Defendant argued that the strict liability character of the offense was unconstitutional. The court of appeals disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5203(e)'s strict liability criminalization of KORA registration violations did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights. View "State v. Genson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of first-degree felony murder, one count of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and one count of criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in instructing the jury on his two felony-murder charges because the instructions contained no language on res gestate or causation. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that there was no error in the jury instructions given by the district court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming and remanding this criminal case with directions, holding that there was no error in the district court's award of restitution.Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted theft. The district court sentenced him to ten months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the two victims of his crimes as a condition of his postrelease. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the restitution order but remanded for the issuance of a new journal entry clarifying that the payment of restitution was a condition of postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court reversed the remand order and otherwise affirmed, holding that the panel erred in deciding to remand for a nunc pro tunc order and that there was no error in the court of appeals' decision affirming the district court's restitution order. View "State v. Eubanks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567(a)(3), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but that an instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.Section 8-1567(a)(3) states that driving under the influence is "operating or attempting to operate" any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle. At issue was whether the district court committed reversible error in the jury instructions by failing properly to define the word "operate" as used in the statute. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by denying Defendant's request to modify the instruction to define or replace "operate" as "drive." View "State v. Zeiner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for fifty years, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and no error below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of premeditation; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant did not preserve her argument that there was not an adequate showing in the record that her trial counsel received her informed consent to pursue a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no prosecutorial error; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering a mental evaluation under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3429. View "State v. Hilyard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court's exclusion of polygraph evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to amend the information; (3) although the admission of Defendant's videotaped confession to a previous offense may have been inflammatory, any error was harmless; and (4) cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing this case on the grounds that state law immunized Whichita Police Officer Dexter Betts's use of deadly force in self-defense, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231(a) does not extend its immunity to a defendant's reckless acts while engaged in self-defense that result in unintended injury to an innocent bystander.Betts fired two gunshots at a fast-approaching dog he thought was attacking him and instead injured a young girl sitting nearby. After the State charged Betts with reckless aggravated battery Betts moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that state law immunized his use of deadly force in self-defense even if he did act recklessly. The district court decided a defendant can assert self-defense immunity when charged with a recklessness crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the self-defense privilege does not extend to reckless conduct injuring an innocent bystander who was not reasonably perceived as an attacker. View "State v. Betts" on Justia Law