Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. After a trial, the jury convicted Defendant of the firearm charge but failed to reach a verdict on the murder charge. The district court subsequently declared a mistrial. Before the State pursued a second trial on the murder charge, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that any retrial would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that Kansas statutes only allow an appeal in the case of a final judgment, which requires a conviction and sentence, and therefore, Defendant’s appeal was not properly before the court and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. View "State v. Webb" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of capital murder and four counts of attempted capital murder. The jury sentenced Defendant to death on the capital offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not waive his privilege against self-incrimination by presenting a voluntary intoxication defense to the capital murder charges. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Supreme Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the rebuttal testimony presented by the State in the form of Dr. Michael Welner’s expert opinion was admissible. Because the Supreme Court ruled that Welner should not have been allowed to testify at trial, the Court did not consider whether his testimony exceeded the scope of rebuttal. On remand, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Welner’s testimony did not exceed the proper scope of rebuttal allowed by the Fifth Amendment or by Kansas evidentiary rules; and (2) none of the remaining issues raised on appeal required reversal or remand. View "State v. Cheever" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five sentence and ordered to pay restitution. Years later, Defendant filed a pro se motion seeking leave from the district court to file his appeal out of time, arguing that his attorney failed to file a timely appeal despite Defendant’s request. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite Defendant’s argument to the contrary, Defendant’s sentence was final for purposes of appeal; and (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to file an untimely appeal. View "State v. Northern" on Justia Law

While executing a search warrant at Defendant’s residence, law enforcement officers seized marijuana and methamphetamine. None of the drugs bore the requisite drug tax stamps. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of numerous drug offenses. Relevant to this appeal were Defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana with no drug tax stamp and possession of methamphetamine with no drug tax stamp. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Defendant’s possession of both marijuana and methamphetamine without the appropriate drug tax stamps affixed constituted a single crime that should not have been charged in two counts, and therefore, one count is reversed; (2) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s closing argument; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutional. View "State v. Pribble" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court revisited and realigned the Kansas approach to charging document sufficiency. Defendant was convicted of one count each of forgery and stalking. For the first time on appeal, Defendant argued that the charging document failed to allege all of the elements of the crime of forgery, thereby depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. In so arguing, Defendant urged the Supreme Court to reject State v. Hall in the respect that Hall made it more difficult for defendants to mount a jurisdictional challenge based on charging document error raised for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, holding (1) there is no reason for Hall’s differentiation between treatment of charging document error and other types of types of errors; (2) charging documents need not allege every element of a crime in order to invoke a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction or sustain an appellate court’s jurisdiction; (3) omission of certain information from a charging document may give a defendant a successful claim for relief that will take various forms at various stages of a prosecution before the trial court and on appeal; and (4) under the revised analysis described in this opinion, Defendant’s convictions are affirmed. View "State v. Dunn" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Kansas’ speedy trial statute, which provides that a criminal case in which a defendant has been “held to answer on an appearance bond” shall be dismissed if a trial does not occur within 180 days after arraignment. In City of Elkhart v. Bollacker, the Supreme Court held that the legislature intended the statute to apply even when a defendant had not been held on an appearance bond. In the instant case, Defendant, who was not on bond, relied on the speedy trial statute in seeking dismissal of the criminal charges. The district court dismissed the charges because a trial did not take place within 180 days after Defendant’s arraignment. The Court of Appeals affirmed based on Bollacker. The Supreme Court overruled Bollacker, holding (1) the Bollacker court violated the rules of statutory interpretation, and (2) a defendant not held to answer on an appearance bond has no statutory speedy trial right under the statute. The Court, however, affirmed the dismissal of the charges against Defendant because its right to dismissal for a statutory speedy trial violation had vested under the prior binding law. View "State v. Spencer Gifts, LLC" on Justia Law

In 1987, Appellant pled no contest to felony murder and one count of aggravated robbery and pled guilty to three counts of aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a controlling prison term of life without the possibility of parole for thirty years. In 2014, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that State v. Murdock required that his sentence be converted to a guidelines sentence under the 1993 version of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s sentence was ineligible for retroactive application of the KSGA today, and therefore, his 1987 sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Jeffries" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, attempted rape, criminal threat, and two counts of aggravated sexual battery. Defendant’s first trial ended in a postconviction mistrial. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed and filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that his aggravated kidnapping sentence was illegal based on State v. Murdock. The Supreme Court affirmed and denied Defendant’s motion, holding (1) juror misconduct occurred but the misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) any errors that occurred during trial were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) Defendant’s argument that his sentence was illegal was resolved by State v. Keel, which overruled Murdock. View "State v. Corey" on Justia Law

After a bench trial on stipulated facts, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and refusing a preliminary breath test. Defendant appealed, arguing that the stipulated facts were insufficient to prove that she operated or attempted to operate a vehicle. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in its interpretation of the applicable statute, as taking actual physical control of a vehicle does not satisfy the operate or attempt to operate element of DUI; and (2) the stipulated facts presented by the parties were sufficient to prove that Defendant attempted to move the vehicle. View "State v. Darrow" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to life without the possibility of parole for twenty years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision term, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s vehicular burglary conviction; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (4) the district court’s jury instruction on aiding and abetting was not in error; (5) the district court did not violate Defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by authorizing the state to prosecute Defendant as an adult; and (6) the district court erred by noting within the journal entry of judgment that Defendant was subjected to lifetime postrelease supervision for all of his convictions. Remanded. View "State v. Potts" on Justia Law