Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2003, Plaintiff pled guilty to one count of indecent liberties with a minor. Plaintiff successfully completed his probation in 2006. At the time of his conviction, the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) required Plaintiff to register for a period of ten years from the date of his conviction. Before Plaintiff was scheduled to complete his reporting requirements, Plaintiff was notified that his period of registration had been extended from ten years to twenty-five years under the amendments to KORA that were to become effective in 2011. Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a judicial determination that the retroactive application of the 2011 KORA amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the KORA amendments could not be retroactively applied to Plaintiff without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "Doe v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled no contest to one count of indecent solicitation of a child fourteen to fifteen years old. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but the district court suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on probation. The district court also ordered Appellant to register as a sex offender. Under the 2001 version of the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) Appellant’s registration term would have expired after ten years. Under the 2011 KORA amendments, Appellant’s crime of conviction required registration for twenty-five years. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with three counts of violating KORA for failing to report in person on three dates outside the original ten-year registration period. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the charges against him violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The district court granted Appellant’s motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s ten-year registration period could not be retroactively increased to twenty-five years and that, without a statutory duty to report, Appellant could not be prosecuted for failing to report. View "State v. Redmond" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with various firearm and drug-related crimes. Defendant filed numerous motions to suppress the evidence obtained during a search of a residence and a vehicle parked in the driveway. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle on the grounds that it was not within the scope of the search warrant. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the search warrant for the “premises” authorized the search of vehicles within the curtilage of the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the vehicle was authorized by the warrant, and therefore, the incriminating evidence located in the vehicle was lawfully discovered. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and criminal damage to property. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the prosecutor violated Doyle v. Ohio during his cross-examination of Defendant, but Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions on the basis of the Doyle error alone; (2) there was one instance of prosecutorial misconduct during closing, but this single error did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record; (3) the district court judge did not commit clear error in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter; (4) the district judge did not err by telling the jury at the beginning of the trial that a mistrial attributable to jury misconduct would be a burden on the parties and taxpayers; (5) the criminal damage conviction was supported by sufficient evidence; (6) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; and (7) the district judge did not err in determining Defendant’s criminal history score. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to multiple felony charges and was sentenced to sixty-eight months’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, asserting that his criminal history score should not have included an Oklahoma nonperson felony because he received a deferred judgment for that crime, which did not constitute a conviction for criminal history scoring purposes. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the invited error doctrine barred Appellant’s challenge to his criminal history score. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Appellant illegal sentence challenge was subject to appellate review; and (2) a successfully completed Oklahoma deferred judgment is not to be counted as a conviction when calculating a Kansas criminal history score. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Hankins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of rape. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment with lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime registration as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). Defendant appealed, arguing that the requirement of lifetime registration as a sex offender is unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment in violation of section 9 of the Kansas Bill of Rights and the Eighth Amendment to the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that lifetime registration as a sex offender pursuant to KORA does not qualify as punishment for either section 9 or Eighth Amendment purposes. View "State v. Petersen-Beard" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and lifetime post-release supervision. The court further ordered Defendant to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) for his lifetime, finding that this was Defendant’s second conviction based upon a prior juvenile adjudication. Defendant appealed, arguing that his juvenile adjudication could not count as a prior conviction to enhance the time period of registration. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court erred in imposing a lifetime registration term but that the 2011 amended registration term of twenty-five years, rather than the ten-year registration term in effect when Defendant committed his crime, could be applied retroactively to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Ex Post Factor Clause precludes the retroactive application of the 2011 version of KORA to any sex offender who committed the qualifying offense prior to July 1, 2011. View "State v. Buser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of reckless aggravated battery, felony criminal damage to property, and criminal threat. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment and required him to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and vacated his registration requirement, holding (1) the trial court did not commit clear error in instructing the jury on the lesser included reckless aggravated battery instruction; (2) reckless aggravated battery is not an alternative means crime, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (3) the registration requirement qualified as punishment under the Due Process Clause and required a jury finding of his use of a deadly weapon, and because no such finding was made here, the registration requirement must be vacated. View "State v. Charles" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated burglary. The district court sentenced Appellant to life for the murder conviction, fifty-nine months for aggravated arson, and thirty-two months for aggravated burglary. The court sentenced all sentences to run consecutively and imposed $108,427 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in (1) concluding that consecutive sentences were proportionate to the harm and culpability associated with Appellant’s convictions and ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently; and (2) ordering restitution. View "State v. Shank" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple crimes, including felony murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life plus 142 months. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions were not reversible under the speedy trial statute; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s Batson challenge; (3) Defendant ’s argument about the voluntariness of his statements during a postarrest custodial interview was unpreserved for appeal; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting emergency room photos, autopsy photos, and crime scene photos. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law