Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent solicitation of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit reversible error in (1) denying Defendant's motion to compel a psychological examination of the victim; (2) denying Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars; (3) failing to give a limiting instruction after admitting evidence of Defendant's prior traffic offenses; and (4) denying Defendant's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Court also held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3511(a) does not present an alternative means of committing the crime of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, and therefore, this case did not involve an alternative means issue. Lastly, the district court had jurisdiction to enter the restitution portion of Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Rojas-Marceleno" on Justia Law

Defendant sought review of the court of appeals' decision affirming his convictions for second-degree murder, kidnapping, and other crimes related to the beating death of his longtime companion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in holding that the trial court violated Defendant's right of confrontation by admitting the victim's testimonial statements to the police into evidence, but (2) the court of appeals erred in holding that the error was harmless. The court of appeals, however, did not have the advantage of caselaw that was available after the court of appeals decided the case. Pursuant to the subsequently decided State v. Ward, the error in this case was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Belone" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated robbery, and four counts of aggravated assault. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the crimes. Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his prosecution as an adult because he was not initially charged in juvenile court and the State never obtained authorization to prosecute him as an adult. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding, inter alia, (1) Defendant did not demonstrate he was denied his right to a speedy trial; (2) the district court did not err in allowing into evidence statements made at the previous trial because vacating the earlier trial did not render the sworn testimony from that trial void, did not remove the constitutional protections in place at that trial, and did not change the credibility of the testimony; and (3) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct during closing arguments. View "State v. Breedlove" on Justia Law

After Defendant was convicted of misdemeanor theft in municipal court for violating a city ordinance, his conviction was vacated and he was charged with and convicted of felony theft in state district court for the same offense. Defendant argued that double jeopardy attached to the municipal court proceeding. The State countered that jeopardy did not attach to the municipal court proceeding because the municipal court did not have jurisdiction over felony theft. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not attach, as (1) a city ordinance that conflicts with a state statute by classifying the offense as a misdemeanor when the legislature has classified the crime as a felony does not vest the municipal court with jurisdiction; and (2) the municipal court had the authority to vacate Defendant's plea, and the State could prosecute Defendant for felony theft. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

On direct appeal, Defendant challenged his conviction for aggravated battery, arguing that the district court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury on simple battery as a lesser included offense. The court of appeals agreed, reversed Defendant's conviction, and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals applied a complete standard of review when it declared that trial court is obligated to instruct on any lesser included offense on which a jury might reasonably return a verdict after considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant; and (2) the court of appeals properly interpreted the skip rule. View "State v. Simmons" on Justia Law

On direct appeal of his conviction for the aggravated robbery of a Target store employee, Defendant raised the issue of whether the district court committed reversible error by refusing to give the jury a lesser included offense instruction on the crime of simple theft. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the refusal to give the theft instruction was reversible error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in refusing to give the instruction on theft as a lesser included offense, and the error was not harmless; and (2) the skip rule did not dictate an affirmance of the trial court's refusal to instruct on theft. View "State v. Plummer" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted by a jury of three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction under count four, reversed Defendant's conviction under count five, vacated the sentence imposed in count five, and remanded with directions to resentence Defendant on count four, holding (1) Defendant did not show reversible error in the trial court's rulings regarding the evidentiary matters, limitation of cross-examination, or amendment of the charging document; (2) Defendant's convictions for aggravated indecent liberties with a child in counts four and five were multiplicitous; and (3) the trial court's failure to provide the jury with an appropriate instruction and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury that Defendant was eighteen years or older at the time of the commission of the offense charged in count four was not harmless error. View "State v. Holman" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of, among other crimes, capital murder and four counts of attempted capital murder. Defendant was sentenced to death on the capital offense. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for capital murder and attempted capital murder and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court's decision to allow the State's psychiatric expert to testify based on his court-ordered mental examination of Defendant, when Defendant had not waived his privilege under the Fifth Amendment in that examination by presenting a mental disease or defect defense at trial, violated Defendant's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (2) this constitutional error could not be declared harmless. View "State v. Cheever" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen and lewd and lascivious behavior in the presence of a person under the age of sixteen. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the court imposed a term of lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision, and otherwise affirmed Defendant's sentence, holding (1) a statute, and any instruction that incorporates it, must list distinct alternatives for a material element of the crime in order to qualify for an alternative means analysis and application of the super-sufficiency requirement; (2) accordingly, Defendant's jury was not presented with alternative means on the charges against him; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing the State to reopen its case-in-chief to present evidence of Defendant's age; (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct, but the misconduct was harmless; and (5) the trial court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant was a personal care attendant for a Medicaid beneficiary. Appellant was later charged with Medicaid fraud for submitting a false claim for his services. After a bench trial Appellant was convicted under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3846(a)(1) for defrauding the Medicaid program. The court of appeals reversed Appellant's conviction, holding that the complaint charged that Appellant submitted statements for services he did not provide while the evidence at trial established that Appellant actually did provide the services for which he submitted statements. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that sufficient evidence supported Appellant's conviction for Medicaid fraud. View "State v. McWilliams" on Justia Law