Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the district court erred when it refused to grant a mistrial after a witness claimed to have "double memories" and gave premeditation jury instructions; (2) the district court did not err when it included additional language in the general Pattern Instructions for Kansas defining premeditation; and (3) premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder are not identical offenses, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5402(a)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor did not err in its comments to the jury during closing argument; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the instructions, as a whole, fairly and accurately stated the law and therefore were not erroneous; and (4) the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay $7,000 in attorney fees. View "State v. Buck-Schrag" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings above.On appeal, Defendant argued that the voir dire proceedings were closed to his family members and that not providing space for spectators violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that the voir dire proceeding was open was reasonable and supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to admit certain testimony; and (3) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were not properly before the Supreme Court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Defendant's illegal sentence claim and vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court erred when it looked beyond the elements of Defendant's prior 1976 California juvenile adjudication for burglary to score the adjudication as a person offense.Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and arson. Defendant later moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his prior California burglary adjudication was improperly scored as a person felony. The court of appeals upheld the person classification. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded his case to the district court for resentencing with the burglary adjudication to be scored as a nonperson offense, holding that the district court erred when it scored Defendant's burglary adjudication as a person offense. View "State v. Gales" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the sentence imposed conformed to the applicable statutory provisions.In 1997, Defendant pled no contest to first-degree murder for the 1978 killing of his wife. At sentencing, the district court classified a prior New Mexico conviction for an attempted first-degree murder as a person crime when calculating his criminal history score for the Kansas conviction. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that when he committed the Kansas murder the law did not distinguish between person and nonperson crimes, and therefore, his conviction for his "unclassified felony" should be scored as a nonperson crime for the purpose of determining his criminal history. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's life sentence conformed to the statutory provision for Class A felonies at the applicable time of conviction. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of aggravated arson, holding that no error occurred in the proceedings below.Defendant was fourteen years old when he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the court's certification to try him as an adult violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements Defendant made to police; (2) there was no prosecutorial error; (3) Defendant's Apprendi issue was unpreserved for appeal; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347(e) and authorizing adult prosecution; and (5) the court abused its discretion in applying the factors set out in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38- 2347(e) to authorize a juvenile's adult prosecution. View "State v. Vonachen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for identity theft stemming from his use of personal identifying information belonging to someone else to obtain employment, holding that Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that his convictions were multiplicitous.The State split Defendant's identity theft into two charges to cover the time periods before and after the identity theft statute changed in 2012. On appeal, Defendant argued that his state prosecution for identity theft was preempted by federal law and that his convictions were multiplicitous. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve his multiplicity argument for appeal. View "State v. Ochoa-Lara" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results obtained under the implied consent statute, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the district court to consider the results of Defendant's blood test.Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test results as unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the good faith exception applied to the results of Defendant's blood test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon its decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019), in which the Court held that the good-faith exception applies to breath tests for blood alcohol content collected under the unconstitutional implied consent statute; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "State v. Heim" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results, which presumptively showed that Defendant was guilty of driving under the influence, holding that Defendant did not persuade the Court to abandon its recent decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019).On appeal, Defendant argued that his warrantless blood test obtained under the implied consent statute was unconstitutional based either on consent or as a search incident to arrest. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that the district court properly considered the results of Defendant's blood test under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon Perkins; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "City of Kingman v. Ary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress all evidence seized as a result of a warrantless search of his apartment, holding that Kansas law does not foreclose consent through nonverbal conduct.Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that he did not validly consent to the warrantless search of his apartment because he did not verbally agree to let the officers enter. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant had affirmatively communicated to the officers that they could enter his apartment. At issue on appeal was whether nonverbal conduct can establish valid consent. The Supreme Court held that it can, holding (1) an individual may express valid consent through words, acts, or conduct, and an individual's nonverbal conduct can be relevant in determining whether this standard has been met; and (2) the matter must be remanded for a new hearing under the appropriate legal standards. View "State v. Daino" on Justia Law