Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years and lifetime postrelease supervision for the aggravated indecent liberties conviction and to a concurrent term of 155 months’ imprisonment and lifetime postrelease supervision for the attempted aggravated indecent liberties conviction. The court of appeals vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the district court erred in excluding certain evidence was not preserved for appellate review; (2) the aggravated indecent liberties statute does not create an alternative means crime; (3) the prosecutor’s comment during closing arguments that “Today, you have the power to say to [the victim], ‘We believe you’” was an impermissible attempt to engender sympathy for the victim, but the error was harmless; and (4) Defendant’s hard-twenty-five prison sentence is constitutional under the state and federal constitutions. View "State v. Swint" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated child endangerment. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction under the arson statute; (2) the arson statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in impermissible misconduct during closing arguments; and (4) Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that the trial court erred in admitting several out-of-court statements that the victim made in the days leading up to the fire. View "State v. Bollinger" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty in Saline County District Court to nonresidential burglary, possession of stolen marijuana, and possession of stolen property. The district court judge ordered that Defendant’s sentences in Saline County run consecutive to a sentence Defendant received for a Dickinson County conviction that was imposed the previous day. After Defendant’s probation was revoked, Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge lacked the statutory authority to make his Saline County sentences run consecutive to his Dickinson County sentence. The judge denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of State v. Chronister, Defendant’s sentences conformed to Kansas law and were not illegal. View "State v. Quested" on Justia Law

In 1993, Defendant was convicted of the second-degree murder of his wife. Defendant received a sentence of fifteen years to life imprisonment. In 2009, Defendant filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512. The postconviction court summarily denied the petition because the statute limited the availability of such testing to cases involving convictions of first-degree murder or of rape. The Supreme Court extended section 21-2512 to Defendant and other similarly situated individuals under the authority of the Equal Protection Clause. While his appeal was still pending, Defendant was released from prison and placed on parole. When the district court took up his DNA testing petition on remand, the judge denied it, ruling that the legislature did not intend to allow consideration of section 21-2512 petitions from individuals on conditional release. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant was in prison at the time his section 21-2512 petition for DNA testing was filed, he was “in state custody” at the relevant time. Remanded. View "State v. Cheeks" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of felony murder based on the deaths of his girlfriend and his girlfriend’s two-year-old niece. At the plea hearing, Defendant admitted he intentionally set fire to an apartment, killing the victims. The district court sentenced Defendant to two consecutive life sentences with a mandatory minimum of twenty years each. Defendant appealed the consecutive nature of his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court made an adequate record of its decision to order Defendant to serve the sentences consecutively and did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to two consecutive life sentences. View "State v. Horn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. Both the State and Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant conviction but vacated his sentence, holding (1) Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial did not attach to the questioning of the victim, and therefore, the closure of the courtroom for a hearing to determine whether the witness would testify did not violate Defendant’s right to a public trial; (2) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) due to problems in the district judge’s decision to grant a downward durational departure, the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

An infant died from respiratory failure after becoming trapped between the mattress and footboard of an adult bed at the home of Defendant, his daycare provider. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and aggravated endangering a trial. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly denied Defendant’s pretrial motion to dismiss because the motion was untimely; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s convictions; (3) the district court’s instructions to the jury on two means of committing involuntary manslaughter did not violate Defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict; (4) the district court did not clearly err by declining to define “imminence” for the jury; (5) the district court did not err in refusing to issue Defendant’s limiting instruction regarding the evidentiary value of a state regulation; and (6) the district court’s response to the deliberating jury’s question was harmless error. View "State v. Bolze-Sann" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of cocaine, and fleeing and eluding a police officer while committing five or more moving violations. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions, read together with an answer provided to a question posed by the jury, were sufficient for the jury to understand the foundation for a conviction; (2) Defendant’s defense was not prejudiced by the State’s failure to disclose in advance of the trial the existence of a videotape of vehicle pursuit; and (3) an instruction on drug paraphernalia did not invade the province of the jury by informing the jury that it must find that Defendant was using a scale as an accessory to illegal drug distribution. View "State v. Sisson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The plea agreement obligated the State to join in Defendant’s request for a downward dispositional departure to probation. After a hearing, the sentencing judge denied Defendant’s dispositional departure motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by not joining in her downward departure motion. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecutor did not violate the plea agreement, as that the prosecutor’s comments were adequate to fulfill the agreement’s requirement for the State to recommend probation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor had an affirmative duty arising from the plea agreement to recommend a particular sentence; and (2) the State breached its plea agreement with Defendant. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sodomy, and criminal restraint. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s criminal restraint conviction as multiplicitous with his rape conviction but otherwise affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for new trial that was based on the results of postconviction DNA testing. Ultimately, the district court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial, concluding that the new DNA evidence was unlikely to have yielded a different outcome at trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to facilitate meaningful appellate review; and (2) did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial because no reasonable probability existed that the new DNA evidence would result in a different outcome at trial. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law