Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions of two alternative counts of felony murder, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions.Defendant's first felony-murder conviction was based on the underlying felony of attempted aggravated robbery under an aiding and abetting theory of liability. On appeal, Defendant argued that a clearly erroneous instructional error, together with insufficient evidence, warranted reversal of his conviction. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the instructional error kept the jury from making the requisite finding that Defendant specifically intended to commit aggravated robbery; and (2) the State's evidence was insufficient to support a finding that Defendant specifically intended to commit aggravated robbery. View "State v. Mora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possessing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia, rendered after a second trial, holding that there was no error, either individually or cumulatively, that warranted a new trial in this case.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) the district court did not err by failing to give a limiting instruction for a law enforcement officer's testimony; (3) a limiting instruction was not warranted as to certain DNA evidence; and (4) there was no merit to Defendant's claim of prosecutorial error. View "State v. Sieg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of child endangerment, and other crimes, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed Defendant's first-degree murder conviction and vacated his sentence. Upon a motion for rehearing by the State, the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief issues related to the use of self-defense. The Supreme Court then affirmed Defendant's felony-murder conviction, holding (1) a self-defense instruction may only be given in felony-murder cases to the extent it may negate an element of the underlying inherently dangerous felony; and (2) because Defendant's alleged self-defense in this case could not legally justify any of the elements of the underlying inherently dangerous felony of aggravated robbery Defendant was not entitled to a self-defense instruction. View "State v. Holley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony murder with the underlying felony of attempted distribution of marijuana, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant's convictions arose from a drug buy in which the victim and intended purchaser attacked Defendant and attempted to steal the marijuana. Defendant shot and killed the intended purchaser during the scuffle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense and in finding that Defendant was not entitled to self-defense immunity; (2) the instructions on attempted distribution of marijuana were not in error; and (3) the district court did not erroneously deny Defendant's motion for acquittal. View "State v. Milo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err.Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, subject to the possibility of parole after fifteen years, for first-degree murder and related crimes. Defendant later moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing, among other things, that his sentence was disproportionate punishment. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's sentence was not ambiguous and was not illegal. View "State v. Claiborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder and his sentence of life without the possibility of parole for fifty years, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a venue change; (2) the autopsy photographs admitted at trial were relevant, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that they were not unduly prejudicial; and (3) the district court did not err when it declined Defendant's request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for aggravated battery, aggravated burglary, and criminal threat, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the court of appeals panel abused its discretion in entertaining Defendant's constitutional speedy trial claims required factual development out of the reach of an appellate court; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's aggravated burglary conviction; and (3) the district court erred by admitting out-of-court statements of an interpreter over defense hearsay objections, but the erroneous ruling on the hearsay objection was harmless. View "State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence imposed following Defendant's plea of guilty to two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of felony theft, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant.Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of premeditated intentional murder and one count of theft. The trial court sentenced him to two consecutive hard fifty life terms for the murders. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his request for a departure sentence, essentially challenging the decision's reasonableness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's departure motion. View "State v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation and order him to serve his original prison sentence, holding that the district court's revocation of Defendant's probation adhered to the statutory framework in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3716(c)(9)(B).Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. After Defendant violated his probation, the district court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the original prison sentence. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court lacked the authority to revoke his probation without imposing the required immediate sanctions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by bypassing immediate sanctions and imposing Defendant's original prison sentence. View "State v. Tafolla" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the district court and the court of appeals concluding that Kansas did not have "proximate result" jurisdiction under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5106, holding that the lower courts erred in interpreting and applying section 21-5106.At issue was whether Kansas had territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant for insurance fraud and making a false information where Defendant committed no acts related to those charges while physically in the state. The district court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that Defendant's actions caused a consequence or effect in Kansas close enough in time or cause to the alleged criminal acts to qualify as a proximate result allowing Kansas to exercise jurisdiction. View "State v. Rozell" on Justia Law