Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated interference with parental custody, holding that Defendant's post-arrest confession was voluntary and that any violation of Defendant's due process rights was harmless.On appeal, Defendant argued that her confession was involuntary and that its admission at trial was reversible error. Defendant also argued that the State violated her due process rights at trial by mentioning her invocation of her rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) substantial competent evidence supported the foundation of the district court's decision that Defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible; and (2) where the State thoroughly undermined Defendant's credibility, any fleeting mention of Defendant's invocation of her rights was harmless error. View "State v. Sesmas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of premeditated first-degree murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.During trial, the court instructed the jury on premeditated first-degree murder and on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress self-incriminating statements he made during an interrogation that took place immediately after his arrest; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, arson, and interference with law enforcement but vacated Defendant's controlling hard fifty life sentence, holding that the district court erred by not considering mitigating factors before deciding not to depart from the presumptive sentence.Defendant moved for a downward departure from a hard fifty sentence, arguing that she had no criminal history. The district court stated that it would not consider the absence of Defendant's criminal history as a mitigating factor because the legislature had rejected that argument as grounds for mitigation. The State conceded that the court's statement conflicted with the statutory sentencing scheme and incorrectly stated the law. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the error was not harmless. View "State v. Galloway" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of aggravated robbery for robbing a Dollar General using a Taser and ordering Defendant to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4902(e)(2), holding that Defendant was not erroneously ordered to register under KORA.On appeal, Defendant challenged the requirement that she register as a violent offender, arguing that the registration requirement was procedurally unsound and not supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge made the necessary finding on the record under section 22-4902(e)(2); (2) the district judge had substantial competent evidence to support his finding that Defendant employed a deadly weapon in the aggravated robbery of the Dollar General; and (3) the district judge's fact-finding did not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder but vacated the portion of his sentence ordering lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of prosecutorial error and errors related to jury instructions but that the district court erred in ordering lifetime postrelease supervision following Defendant's indeterminate life sentence.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor did not err in his comments during closing argument; (2) the district court did not commit reversible error in failing to instruct on lesser included crimes and on voluntary intoxication; (3) Defendant's newly raised constitutional claims were without merit; but (4) the district court erred in imposing a term of postrelease supervision rather than parole. View "State v. Becker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, rape, and aggravated burglary, holding that the district court did not err in admitting prior sex crime evidence and did not commit clear error when it did not instruct the jury on intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court should have sentenced him for intentional second-degree murder even though he was convicted of first degree premeditated murder under the identical offense doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's identical offense argument was unpreserved for appellate review; (2) the district court did not err when it admitted evidence of prior crimes under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455; and (3) Defendant failed to establish that the jury would have reached a different verdict had the district court offered an instruction on intentional second-degree murder. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of burglary, theft, and prohibited possession of firearms, holding that the district court judge's response to a jury's mid-deliberation question about jury nullification was not reversible error and that the jury instructions were not in error.During trial, the members of Defendant's jury asked if nullification can "be applied" to the firearm charges. On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district judge's answer affirmatively misinformed the jury and clearly implied that jury nullification did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge's response to the jury question was not error; (2) the burglary instruction given to the jury was erroneous but not reversible; and (3) the accomplice instruction was not error. View "State v. Boeschling" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court judge granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that this Court cannot consider the merits of Defendant's constitutional arguments because a motion to correct an illegal sentence is an improper vehicle for them.Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole for twenty-five years, known as a hard twenty-five, upon his plea of no contest to first-degree murder. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his hard twenty-five was constitutionally disproportionate and that the district judge erred by imposing lifetime postrelease supervision. The district court agreed that Defendant should not be subject to lifetime postrelease supervision but rejected Defendant's constitutional challenge. Defendant appealed, arguing that his hard twenty-five was disproportionate under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a motion to correct an illegal sentence cannot raise claims that a sentence violates a constitutional provision. View "State v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant after he pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine, felony domestic battery, and violation of a protective order, holding that the district judge did not engage in prohibited double counting of two prior misdemeanor domestic battery convictions.Defendant's domestic battery conviction qualified as a felony rather than a misdemeanor because it was his third such conviction in five years. In calculating Defendant's criminal history score to determine the sentence for Defendant's conviction for methamphetamine possession, the judge included the same two misdemeanor domestic battery convictions that were used to elevate Defendant's domestic battery to a felony. On appeal, Defendant asserted that the district judge engaged in double counting of the two prior misdemeanor domestic battery convictions under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6810(d)(9). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that including Defendant's prior domestic battery convictions in Defendant's criminal history calculation for his primary grid conviction did not violate the double-counting provision of section 21-6810(d)(9). View "State v. Fowler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denials of Defendant's motions to withdraw his pleas of guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder but vacated the imposition of lifetime supervision, holding that the district court had no authority to impose lifetime postrelease supervision.Before sentencing, Defendant moved to withdraw his pleas of guilty to first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree intentional murder. The district court denied the motions. The court imposed a life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction and ordered lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motions to withdraw his pleas; but (2) the district court erred when it sentenced Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision on the first-degree murder conviction because Defendant was eligible for parole after serving twenty years of his off-grid indeterminate life sentence for that conviction. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law