Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Criminal Law
by
In this case, the defendant, Joshua F. Sinnard, was charged with commercial sexual exploitation of a child after arranging to have sex with a 17-year-old in exchange for money. Sinnard contested the district court's decision to allow his trial to proceed after the statutory speedy trial deadline had passed, alleging an abuse of discretion under the "crowded-docket exception" of the Kansas speedy trial statute. However, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas upheld the lower court's decision, noting that the district court was within its rights to invoke the exception, and its decision was not arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.Sinnard also challenged the admissibility of a detective's testimony about cell phone tower connectivity, claiming it constituted expert testimony. The Supreme Court disagreed, determining that the detective's testimony was not so specialized as to qualify as expert opinion. However, the court agreed with Sinnard that the detective's testimony about the contents of unadmitted phone records was hearsay and should not have been admitted. However, the court deemed this error harmless as it did not affect the trial's outcome.Finally, Sinnard argued that the jury instruction on commercial sexual exploitation of a child was clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the instructions given accurately stated the law and were not reasonably likely to confuse the jury. The court thus affirmed the lower courts' decisions. View "State v. Sinnard" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
Cardell Turner was charged with two counts of attempted first-degree murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in relation to an incident where he pointed a gun at two individuals, but the gun did not fire. During trial, Turner testified that he pulled up his gun and attempted to fire only because he thought one of the men was about to shoot him. However, a self-defense instruction was not requested by the defense nor given by the court. The jury found Turner guilty on all counts. Turner argued on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his request for new counsel, not instructing the jury on self-defense, and not recusing itself due to alleged bias. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the lower courts' decisions on all issues. It found that Turner's disagreement with his counsel's strategy and frustration with the judge's rulings did not necessitate the appointment of new counsel or recusal of the judge. Additionally, the court determined that while a self-defense instruction would have been factually appropriate, its absence was not clear error requiring reversal, as there was significant evidence against Turner's self-defense claim and the jury verdict indicated that they would have rejected that defense. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
In a dispute originating from a domestic incident in 2016, Michael David Sims was convicted by a jury of multiple crimes, including felony interference with law enforcement. Sims appealed this conviction arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support it. Both Sims and the State recommended that the Court of Appeals reverse the conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand the case for resentencing on a lesser misdemeanor interference offense. The Court of Appeals agreed and the lower court resentenced Sims and ordered the misdemeanor conviction to run concurrently with all other counts, declaring Sims' time served to be sufficient to satisfy his sentence.Subsequently, Sims filed a wrongful conviction lawsuit, alleging he spent nearly a year in prison due to the invalid felony conviction. The State argued that Sims couldn't prove his interference charge was dismissed nor was he found not guilty on retrial, as required by K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(B). The district court sided with the State and denied Sims' claim, ruling that the interference charge wasn't dismissed as envisioned by the statute.The Supreme Court of the state of Kansas affirmed this decision. It held that although Sims' felony conviction was reversed, the interference charge was never dismissed, as the case was remanded and Sims was convicted of misdemeanor interference. The Court concluded that Sims failed to prove that his charges were dismissed or that he was found not guilty on retrial, as required by the wrongful conviction statute. Thus, Sims' claim for wrongful conviction was dismissed. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Sims" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The defendant, Kyle Trevor Flack, was convicted of capital murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The jury sentenced him to death after finding two aggravating factors that were not outweighed by mitigating circumstances. The defendant appealed his convictions and sentence, raising several issues. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the convictions and the sentence. The court found that the defendant did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent in his repeated statements to "take me to jail" during a custodial interview as they were context-dependent and did not clearly state to stop the interview. The court also found that the trial court did not violate the defendant's right to present a defense by denying his requests for continuance, and the court did not err in denying the defendant's for-cause challenges to certain jurors. The court further found no prosecutorial error during the guilt phase or the penalty phase of the trial. The court rejected the defendant's Eighth Amendment challenge to his death sentence, and also rejected his challenges under sections 1 and 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The court concluded that there were no errors that warranted reversal of the defendant's convictions or sentence. View "State v. Flack" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had overturned Mark Scheetz's convictions for aggravated criminal sodomy, rape, sexual exploitation of a child, and victim intimidation. The Court of Appeals had ruled that the cumulative effect of various trial errors denied Scheetz his constitutional right to a fair trial. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in its analysis, as Scheetz failed to make a timely and specific objection at trial to preserve an evidentiary challenge for appellate review as required by K.S.A. 60-404. Furthermore, the Supreme Court found the internet search history evidence was relevant to establish Scheetz's sexual desire for underage girls, a required element of the sexual exploitation of a child charge. The Supreme Court also concluded the prosecutor did not commit error in his closing arguments as the panel had determined. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed Scheetz's convictions. View "State v. Scheetz" on Justia Law

by
In a case before the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, the defendant, Kristoffer L. Klesath, appealed his convictions for first-degree felony murder, intentional second-degree murder, and aggravated robbery. Klesath argued that the state failed to provide adequate evidence to support the aggravated robbery charge, and the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter and its accompanying imperfect self-defense. The case stems from an incident where Klesath engaged in a confrontation with Darton Fields outside a liquor store. Both men were armed with handguns. During the altercation, Klesath shot Fields, who subsequently died. Klesath then picked up Fields' dropped gun before fleeing the scene.The court affirmed the lower court's decision. It held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for aggravated robbery, which in turn justified the felony murder conviction. The court further held that Klesath could not assert self-defense to negate the charge of aggravated robbery. The court reasoned that the crime of aggravated robbery does not contain an element that would justify the use of force in self-defense. Additionally, a defendant may not assert self-defense if the defendant is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping from the commission of a forcible felony. As a result, the court did not need to consider Klesath's remaining challenges because the trial court merged his convictions for second-degree murder and felony murder, sentencing Klesath only on felony murder. View "State v. Klesath" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
In the State of Kansas v. Frank Raymond Crudo, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, ruling against Crudo on all five arguments he presented. Crudo was pulled over for a non-functioning license plate light, and upon approaching the vehicle, officers smelled marijuana, leading to a search of Crudo's truck and attached camper. They found varying amounts of marijuana in different locations, leading to multiple charges against Crudo.Crudo's arguments included: (1) the search of his camper was unconstitutional as it should not be considered part of his vehicle for the purposes of the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, (2) the testimony of Lieutenant Ricard at his second trial should have been considered expert testimony and therefore inadmissible due to non-compliance with expert testimony rules, (3) the use of a permissive inference instruction was in error and affected the trial outcome, (4) his second trial for possession with intent to distribute marijuana violated double jeopardy principles, and (5) cumulative error.On the first point, the court ruled that probable cause to search a vehicle under the automobile exception does not need to be "localized" to a specific area of the vehicle and therefore extended to the camper. On the second point, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting Lt. Ricard's testimony as lay opinion testimony. On the third point, the court agreed that the permissive inference instruction was in error, but found it harmless. On the fourth point, the court found that Crudo's convictions for possession and distribution were based on separate acts and thus did not constitute double jeopardy. Lastly, because there was only one error (the permissive inference instruction), the doctrine of cumulative error did not apply. View "State v. Crudo" on Justia Law

by
In the State of Kansas, Robert Lowell-Lawrence Ward, the defendant, attempted to withdraw his 2013 plea of no contest to various crimes, eight years later in 2021. The district court summarily denied his motion, and the decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmatively upheld these rulings. The Court found that Ward's motion to withdraw his plea was untimely and procedurally barred, as he failed to prove "excusable neglect," a necessary condition to overcome the one-year time bar for such motions as per Kansas statute K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 22-3210(e). The Court clarified that a motion's untimeliness does not necessarily prevent its consideration, provided the defendant can demonstrate excusable neglect for the delay, which the defendant failed to do. The Court emphasized that a district court cannot bypass this procedural requirement and directly address the merits of an untimely motion without first determining the presence or absence of excusable neglect. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the lower courts, but for different reasons, focusing on the procedural bar rather than the merits of the motion. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Devawn T. Mitchell was convicted for first-degree felony murder, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, two counts of felony fleeing and eluding, and misdemeanor fleeing and eluding. Mitchell appealed, arguing that the district court inappropriately found him competent to stand trial, failed to obtain a psychological evaluation before sentencing him, and incorrectly applied his "B" criminal history score to increase his mandatory minimum sentence.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the lower court's decisions. In addressing Mitchell's competence to stand trial, the court determined that the district court had correctly followed procedure, ordering a competency evaluation and holding a hearing. The court found that Mitchell failed to prove he was incompetent and therefore upheld the lower court's finding of competence.Regarding the failure to order a psychological evaluation, the Supreme Court noted that Mitchell did not explicitly request such an evaluation. As the request was not made, the district court was under no obligation to order an evaluation.As for the application of Mitchell's criminal history score, the court ruled that the lower court correctly applied the score to Mitchell's mandatory minimum life sentence before parole eligibility. The court found that neither the plain language nor any reasonable interpretation of the statutes prohibited the use of Mitchell's criminal history score to calculate his minimum life sentence before parole eligibility.In sum, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed Mitchell's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law
by
In the case at hand, the appellant, Melissa Lowe, was convicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon involving an incident with her ex-husband's girlfriend. Lowe appealed her conviction, arguing that the district court should have instructed the jury on simple assault, a misdemeanor, as a lesser included offense. The Supreme Court of Kansas agreed with Lowe that the district court erred by failing to give a lesser included offense instruction, as there was evidence which could have justified a conviction for simple assault.However, the court noted that under Kansas law, Lowe bore the burden to firmly convince the court that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the district court not failed to give the lesser included offense instruction. Looking at the entire record, the Supreme Court of Kansas concluded that there was nothing to establish that the jury would have reached a different result. The jury had rejected Lowe's version of events, finding the witnesses' accounts that Lowe swerved her car towards the victim credible enough to convict her of aggravated assault. Consequently, the court held that the failure to give the lesser included offense instruction was not reversible error. The court affirmed both the judgment from the district court and the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Lowe" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law