Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed two of Defendant's convictions and reversed the court of appeals' decision to reverse two more of Defendant's convictions, holding that clearly erroneous jury instructions required reversal in part.Defendant was convicted of sexual exploitation of a child. Counts two and four, describing the possession of illicit materials, were charged in the alternative to counts one and three, describing "promoting any performance." The district court sentenced Defendant as an aggravated habitual sex offender to life in prison without the possibility of parole but did not impose sentence on the two counts charged in the alternative. The court of appeals reversed two of Defendant's convictions on the basis that they were charged in the alternative and determined that Defendant should have been sentenced as a persistent sex offender. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in permitting evidence of Defendant's prior convictions; and (2) asserted errors in the language of the jury instructions pertaining to Defendant's convictions in counts one and three were not harmless. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of identity theft, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish venue in Johnson County and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.A jury convicted Defendant of identity theft, and the district court sentenced her to eighteen months of probation with an underlying ten-month prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to show venue was proper; and (2) using a person's name, address, and debit card number to defraud another person is directly addressed by the identity theft statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) venue was proper in Johnson County; and (2) Defendant was properly convicted of identity theft. View "State v. Euler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court not to order the return of restitution previously collected and distributed to Defendant's victims after the Supreme Court remanded the case upon deciding a clerical error may have led to restitution being mistakenly collected from Defendant, holding that there was no error.Defendant was serving a life sentence on felony murder when he filed the pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence at issue on this appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that a clerical error could have led to a collection agency wrongfully collected restitution during Defendant's imprisonment and remanded Defendant's motion to the district court to decide whether any clerical error required collection. The district court ordered that the error be corrected and that collection efforts cease but determined that it lacked authority to order the return of funds distributed to victims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the district court had authority to order third parties to return those funds. View "State v. Bailey" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the finding of the district court that Defendant committed a sex offense for which he had a registration obligation under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., holding that the district court's finding that Defendant committed the crimes of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping for the purpose of sexual gratification was not supported by substantial competent evidence.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was no evidence that he committed the crimes for the purpose of sexual gratification. In response, the State argued that the felony murder and aggravated kidnapping were inextricably intertwined with the sexual encounter Defendant had with the victim before he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant, holding that the State did not present substantial competent evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed the crimes of felony murder and aggravated kidnapping for the purpose of his sexual gratification. View "State v. Rinke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed in connection with his plea of guilty to aggravated intimidation of a witness, aggravated domestic battery, and two counts of violation of a protective order, holding that the sentencing judge did not err in classifying a Missouri kidnapping conviction as a person felony.When Defendant committed the crimes at issue on appeal, the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6801 et seq., directed sentencing judges to classify an out-of-state conviction as a nonperson crime if no Kansas crime compared to the out-of-state crime. If, however, there was a comparable Kansas crime and the legislature classified it as a person crime, the sentencing judge should also classify the out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The sentencing judge in this case classified Defendant's kidnapping conviction as a person offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Missouri crime of felony first-degree kidnapping is comparable to kidnapping as defined by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5408, a person felony. View "State v. Samuels" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the portion of the judgment of the court of appeals reversing one of Defendant's two alternatively charged convictions for fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, holding that the panel overstepped its discretion by dictating that the second conviction must be reversed.The State charged Defendant with two alternative counts of fleeing or attempting to elude an officer. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts, and Defendant was convicted accordingly. At sentencing, the State suggested that the district court could hold count two in abeyance and sentence Defendant on count one. The district court agreed. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the district court lacked authority to enter both convictions and had no authority to hold one conviction in abeyance. The court then reversed Defendant's second conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded the case, holding that the guilty verdicts on alternative counts charging the same crime merge by operation of law to result in a single conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement. View "State v. Vargas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part Defendant's convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, felony murder (in the alternative), two counts of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, and rape, holding that the State presented insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve an objection to the district court's limitation of cross-examination of a witness's potential charges or sentences; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of another witness; (3) the prosecutor did not misstate the law during closing arguments; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; (5) the prosecutor did not commit error by describing the proper sequence of consideration of lesser included offenses during closing arguments; (6) Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance was unsupported by the evidence; (7) the district court properly admitted the admission of an audio recording of an individual's torture; and (8) Defendant's prior California crime was properly classified as a person felony. View "State v. Hillard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and two counts of interference with a law enforcement officer and his controlling hard fifty sentence, holding that the district court's evidentiary rulings were not in error and that cumulative error did not deny him a fair trial.On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district court repeatedly erred by admitting evidence in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 and by admitting hearsay evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the district court judge erred by either failing to properly analyze evidence under section 60-455, failing to properly exclude it, or failing to properly instruct the jury, the error would be harmless in light of the entire record; (2) Defendant's second claim of error was plainly invited by Defendant; and (3) the evidence continued to render the assumed errors in this case harmless, even when their cumulative effect was considered. View "State v. Knapp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court revoking Defendant's probation and ordering him to serve his underlying sentence, holding that the district court did not err in revoking Defendant's probation.Defendant entered into a plea agreement for failing to register as an offender. The district court sentenced him to 120 months' incarceration but granted him probation for a thirty-six-month period. In 2013, the State filed a second motion to revoke Defendant's probation, alleging several violations. The district court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his original prison sentence. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case. On remand, the court revoked Defendant's probation and ordered him to serve his underlying sentence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error by the district court or the court of appeals. View "State v. Dooley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction this appeal brought approximately nineteen years after a district court adjudicated I.A. as a juvenile offender, holding that due process and procedural fairness did not require this Court to hear I.A.'s out-of-time appeal.I.A. pled guilty to two counts of reckless aggravated battery for acts he committed when he was seventeen years old. About nineteen years after his sentencing, I.A. filed a pro se request to file a direct appeal out of time, arguing that the judge had not announced his right to appeal. The court of appeals held that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kansas appellate courts lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal if a juvenile offender did not follow statutory directives, and due process did not require the Court to make an exception. View "In re I.A." on Justia Law