Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of both first-degree premeditated murder and the alternative charge of first-degree felony murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a jury instruction on voluntary intoxication because insufficient evidence supported Defendant's voluntary intoxication defense; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting photographs of the victim's body at trial because, while the photographs may have been gruesome, they were relevant and admissible to show the manner and nature of the victim's death and to corroborate certain testimony; and (3) cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree felony murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.A jury found Defendant guilty of both first-degree felony murder and second-degree intentional murder. At sentencing, Defendant moved for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the jury must have had reasonable doubt on the first-degree felony murder theory because it convicted him of second-degree murder for the same killing. The district court dismissed the second-degree murder conviction and sentenced Defendant for the felony murder over his objection. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it sentenced Defendant on felony murder instead of declaring a mistrial because Defendant did not establish that the jury failed to find each element of the felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt or that the jury's first- and second-degree murder verdicts were so irreconcilable as to require a new trial; and (2) the district court did not err in declining to give an instruction on voluntary intoxication. View "State v. Craig" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, criminal possession of a firearm, fleeing and eluding, and interference with law enforcement, holding that Defendant's arguments on appeal failed.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) any possible violation of Defendant's Fifth Amendment right in the admission of a witness's testimony about Defendant giving the witness phone passcodes was undoubtedly harmless; (2) the district court did not err by admitting hearsay statements as statements of a coconspirator and contemporaneous statements; (3) the State introduced sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of first-degree murder; and (4) the district judge did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony that Defendant was upset over a meth pipe that went missing. View "State v. Lemmie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence, holding that because Defendant did not object to the district court's failure to make factual findings at sentencing and he did not file a motion under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 165, Defendant's as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence was not amenable to appellate review.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder, an off-grid person felony mandating a hard twenty-five sentence. Before sentencing, Defendant argued that his hard twenty-five sentence was unconstitutional as applied to the facts of his case under section 9 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The district court found the sentence constitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to meet his obligation to ensure the district court made the factual findings necessary for appellate review, Defendant failed to preserve his as-applied constitutional challenge for appellate review. View "State v. Espinoza" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court dismissing the second-degree murder and aggravated battery charges against Defendant on the grounds that Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe he was in danger of great bodily harm, holding that Defendant was not entitled to immunity from prosecution under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231.A court of appeals panel reversed the decision of the district court concluding that Defendant was entitled to statutory self-defense immunity, holding that the facts as found by the district court did not support a grant of immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, on the facts as found by the district court, there was probable cause to believe Defendant's use of force was not statutorily justified. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court granting Defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss his charge of first-degree murder based on self-defense immunity, holding that the district court failed to make adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record.The State charged Defendant with first-degree premeditated murder. Defendant moved to dismiss based on self-defense immunity. After a hearing, the district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the State did not meet its burden to show probable cause that self-defense immunity did not apply. The district court made no distinct factual findings. The court of appeals panel reversed and remanded for a rehearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under the circumstances of this case, the court of appeals' ruling was appropriate. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the district court did not err in its challenged instructions to the jury.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give the jury Defendant's requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder because the instruction was not factually appropriate; and (2) the district court did not commit clear error in issuing an unmodified version of Instruction No. 11, which contained the definition of "premeditation" and mirrored PIK Crim. 4th 54.150(d) because the instruction was legally appropriate. View "State v. Uk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court on remand resentencing Defendant to his original mandatory term of imprisonment after once again finding he was not a person with intellectual disability, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Defendant's intellectual disability motion and imposed a mandatory term of imprisonment.Defendant pled no contest to first-degree premeditated murder. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6622(b) asserting that he was a person with intellectual disability and was thus not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. While Defendant's appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Kan. Stat. Ann. 76-12b01(i), which provides new standards for deciding intellectual disability. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant's motion using the new criteria. On remand, the district court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and again sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ruling was reasonably based on the law and was supported by substantial competent evidence. View "State v. Corbin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea of no contest to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, holding that the district court's decision in finding no good cause for Defendant to withdraw his plea was based on errors of fact and law, which were grounds for finding abuse of discretion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest based on misleading or false statements contained in the plea agreement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was enough uncertainty in this case to indicate that Defendant's plea agreement was not understandingly made; and (2) therefore, Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Frazier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of possession fo marijuana, holding that Defendant's waiver of jury trial was legally insufficient.On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not properly waive his right to a jury and asserted three other issues. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions without addressing the three remaining issues, holding that because the district court failed properly to apprise Defendant of his right to a jury trial and failed to ensure that Defendant understood the nature of the right he was giving up, Defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial was violated in this case. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law