Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence, refusing to submit to an evidentiary test under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1025, and related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss or suppress evidence, arguing that section 8-1025, which criminalized his refusal to submit to a breath test, was unconstitutional. The district court concluded that section 8-1025 was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment and also imposed an unconstitutional condition on the privilege to drive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 8-1025 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is facially unconstitutional. View "State v. Wycoff" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted second-degree murder. Before sentencing, the district judge ruled that Defendant qualified for Stand-Your-Ground immunity from prosecution on the attempted second-degree murder charge. The judge vacated the second-degree murder conviction and dismissed that charge. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s immunity order and reinstated Defendant’s attempted second-degree murder conviction, holding that the district judge had no legal basis for his unilateral decision. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to reinstate Defendant’s attempted second-degree murder conviction because the district judge had entered a judgment of acquittal on the charge; and (2) a district judge may sua sponte grant Stand-Your-Ground immunity to a criminal defendant after a jury has returned a guilty verdict but before sentence on the conviction has been pronounced. View "State v. Barlow" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary. Defendant appealed, arguing that his conviction should be reversed because the homeowner was not in the dwelling when Defendant entered it. The court of appeals affirmed based upon existing caselaw that the victim does not have to be in the dwelling at the time a defendant enters it, so long as the victim arrives before the defendant leaves. The Supreme Court reversed the aggravated burglary conviction and overruled the line of cases that the court of appeals relied on as they relate to the crime of aggravated burglary when the defendant is only charged with unauthorized entering into a building or residence and another person is not present at that time, holding that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the aggravated burglary conviction. View "State v. Daws" on Justia Law

In Case 1, Defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor theft and three counts of forgery. In Case 2, Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine. In Case 3, Defendant pled guilty to eight counts of forgery and four counts of theft by deception. Before sentencing in Case 3, Defendant filed a motion for correction or modification of his sentences in Case 1 and Case 2, arguing that his pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) convictions for aggravated burglary and robbery had been improperly classified as person felonies. Following State v. Keel, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s pre-KSGA convictions were correctly classified as person felonies. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error by the district court in answering a jury question with a written response in violation of Defendant’s right to be present at all critical stages of his trial was harmless; (2) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the submission of a written answer to the jury question violated his right to an impartial judge and public trial; and (3) the district court did not commit clear error in failing to give a jury instruction on a lesser included severity level for the crime of aggravated battery. View "State v. Cooper" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal threat. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on criminal threat by including two intended victims of Defendant’s threat, as naming two victims of a criminal threat does not state alternative means; and (2) the district court instructed the jury on alternative means to commit criminal threat based on two different mental states, and the State had the burden of providing sufficient evidence of both means, but sufficient evidence supported each of the alternative means instructed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder and aggravated robbery. More than seven years later, Defendant appealed his sentence and filed a motion to withdraw his pleas. The district court rejected Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea on the merits and ruled that Defendant failed to demonstrate the excusable neglect required to permit his untimely motion. The district court also rejected Defendant’s big to appeal out of time, concluding that it was untimely and not otherwise subject to exceptions from the statutory time limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the appeal as untimely or in denying Defendant’s untimely motion to withdraw plea. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated endangerment of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting portions of the State’s pretrial motion to introduce certain out-of-court statements made by the victim; (2) excluding evidence that the victim had attempted or contemplated suicide in the past; (3) refusing to admit evidence that a hormone that the victim may have been taking had a side effect of depression; (4) excluding Defendant’s testimony about the victim’s use of marijuana; and (5) overruling Defendant’s objection to a prosecution witness’s reference to Defendant’s narcissism during cross-examination. View "State v. Seacat" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated battery of his thirteen-year-old daughter, C.H. Defendant appealed, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his rape and aggravated criminal sodomy convictions. Defendant later filed a pro se petition pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512 seeking postconviction forensic DNA testing of certain items. The district court denied the petition after a nonevidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s denial of Defendant’s petition was founded upon its application of incorrect legal standards. Remanded. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to first-degree murder in exchange for the dismissal of one count of attempted murder and one count of aggravated arson. After unsuccessfully seeking to withdraw her plea before sentencing, Appellant filed four Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motions collaterally attacking her conviction. The motions were denied. Appellant subsequently filed two postsentence motions to withdraw her plea. The district court denied both motions. Appellant appealed the denial of her second successive motion. Appellant conceded that this motion was successive to others she filed and lost. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no showing of excusable neglect because the motion was successive. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law