Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and arson but vacated his sentence to life in prison for the murder and to a consecutive thirteen months for the arson, holding that a sentencing error required remand for resentencing.Specifically, the Court held (1) Appellant acted knowingly and voluntarily when waiving his right to a jury trial; (2) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his argument that the district judge erred in refusing to allow Appellant to present the testimony of a witness despite the witness’ violation of a sequestration order; and (3) the district judge erred in identifying the off-grid crime of first-degree murder, rather than the on-grid crime of arson, as the primary crime for purposes of calculating Appellant’s sentence. View "State v. Redick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order that Appellant comply with the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., holding that the court made the requisite finding on the record that a deadly weapon was used in Appellant’s commission of the person felony for which he was convicted, and the court’s failure to inform Appellant about his registration obligations at the time of conviction was error, but the error was harmless.Appellant pleaded no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. When convicted, Appellant was not informed of his duty to register. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) based on Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(a), this Court had jurisdiction to decide if Appellant’s registration responsibilities were invalid because Appellant was not challenging his conviction on appeal; (2) because Appellant was convicted of a person felony and the court found he used a deadly weapon, which was supported by the record, Appellant was a violent offender subject to KORA’s registration requirements; and (3) the court’s failure to notify Appellant of his duty to register at the time of his conviction did not excuse Appellant’s KORA registration obligations. View "State v. Marinelli" on Justia Law

At issue was whether Defendant had an obligation to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., when the district court never made a finding on the record that a stiletto heel - the object Defendant used to commit aggravated battery with a deadly weapon - was a deadly weapon.The court of appeals upheld Defendant’s conviction but vacated her registration requirement and remanded the case to the district court to determine if the high-heel shoe she used in the commission of the crime constituted a deadly weapon requiring registration under the KORA. The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated the court of appeals’ remand order, holding (1) Defendant met her burden of designating a record sufficient to establish that no duty to register existed; and (2) the absence of a court-made finding on the record that Defendant used a deadly weapon was not a sentencing error amenable to the remedy of a remand, and the court of appeals is reversed only insofar as it improperly prolonged these proceedings. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals panel in this case erred by dismissing Appellant’s appeal from the requirement that he register for lifetime under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., on the grounds that the notice of appeal mentioned only sentencing.Appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated indecent solicitation of a child. The district court sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and ordered lifetime registration under KORA. On appeal, Appellant argued that the lifetime registration violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution because it exceeded the registration period applicable at the time he committed his crime. The Court of Appeals panel dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice of appeal limited the court’s jurisdiction because KORA registration was not part of a criminal sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant’s notice of appeal should have been read broadly enough to encompass his KORA challenge under the conflicting caselaw existing when he appealed. As to the merits, the Supreme court affirmed the lifetime registration requirements, holding that changes to offender registration requirements implemented after Appellant committed his crime are not “punishment” and so are not cruel and unusual punishment proscribed by the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. View "State v. Rocheleau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ sua sponte dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from the requirement that he register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., for his lifetime.Appellant pleaded no contest to kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. At the time of his crimes KORA required ten years’ registration. Statutory amendments between Appellant’s crimes and his plea, however, expanded the requirement to lifetime registration. On appeal, Appellant argued for the first time that his lifetime registration violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution. The court of appeals held that Appellant’s merits arguments could not be raised for the first time on appeal because they involved both factual and legal matters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition for review failed to challenge the lower court’s rulings upon which dismissal was based, and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to relief. View "State v. Pewenofkit" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order obligating Appellant to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., following Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault.On appeal, Appellant argued that the registration requirement was an illegal sentence because the district court did not make a factual finding on the record that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of a person felony, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4902. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that because there was no record that the court made a finding that Appellant used a deadly weapon in committing his crime of conviction, Appellant was not an “offender” as defined by section 22-4902(e)(2). View "State v. Gilkes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of aggravated robbery and sentence of 570 months’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible constitutional or statutory violations.During trial, the district court admitted law enforcement’s video recording of Defendant in the interrogation room. The recordings were not played for the jury in open court, but the jury was permitted to take the exhibits into the jury room during deliberations. On appeal, Defendant argued that the way the district court handled the video recording violated his constitutional and statutory rights to be present at all critical stages of his trial and his constitutional right to a public trial with an impartial judge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not establish reversible constitutional or statutory error under the law in effect when his crimes were committed. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The Court held (1) sufficient evidence existed such that a rational fact-finder could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the two murders; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by falsely claiming that one of the victims got a protection from abuse order against Defendant from the district court, and this error prejudiced Defendant’s due process right to a fair trial and required reversal; and (3) the prosecutor committed other errors in arguments to the jury and by disobeying a court order. The Court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Chandler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the district court’s order of restitution, holding that the court of appeals erred in ruling that the restitution statute requires a direct causal connection between the crime and the damages.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment, suspended in favor of probation, and imposed restitution. The court of appeals concluded that because Defendant was not liable for the entire restitution amount, the district court erred in ordering her to pay restitution. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision ruling that conspiracy to commit burglary does not legally cause damages that result from a corresponding burglary, theft or criminal damage to property, holding that the causal link between a defendant’s crime and the restitution damages for which the defendant is held liable must satisfy the traditional elements of proximate cause: cause-in-fact and legal causation. View "State v. Arnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for murder and aggravated robbery, holding that Appellant’s argument on appeal was not preserved for appellate review.On appeal, Appellant specifically contended that the State improperly published to the jury the victim’s autopsy photographs that he claimed were not admitted into evidence in violation of his rights to due process and an impartial jury. The Supreme Court held that because the defense remained silent during the display of the autopsy photographs to the jury and made no issue of the exhibits until appeal, the photographs are deemed admitted. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law