Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district judge imposed a hard forty life sentence. By way of a journal entry five months later, the district judge set amounts for restitution and court costs. The Supreme court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s conviction bestowed jurisdiction to sentence upon the district court, and the district judge’s pronounced sentenced conformed to the statutory requirements; (2) Defendant’s sentence was not illegal because it became final when the district court judge memorialized the amount of restitution in a journal entry; and (3) the district judge’s failure to hold a hearing in open court with Defendant present to set the amount of restitution did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction or make the sentence illegal. View "State v. Moncla" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in this Jessica’s Law case, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Following his direct appeal, Defendant filed a motion to arrest judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3503, arguing that the charging document in his case was fatally defective and deprived the district court of jurisdiction to convict him because it failed to include the essential element that he was eighteen or older at the time of the alleged crimes. The district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court reinstated the appeal but affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals should not have dismissed Defendant’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction; but (2) Defendant may not raise a collateral challenge to the charging document in a section 22-3503 motion filed well after his direct appeal. View "State v. Sellers" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, vehicle burglary, and theft. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion for change of venue; (2) even if the trial court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of felony murder, Defendant was not entitled to the requested relief of a new trial during which the jury would receive a felony-murder instruction; (3) any error in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of reckless second-degree murder was harmless; (4) the trial court did not err in admitting a before-death photograph of the victim; (5) the trial court did not rule unreasonably in admitting a video of Defendant’s arrest; (6) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during closing arguments; (7) the trial court did not err in failing to declare a mistrial; and (8) sufficient evidence supported the conviction for capital murder. View "State v. Longoria" on Justia Law

Defendant was visiting the home of a long-time acquaintance when police officers arrived. One of the officers walked to the backyard of the property and found a baggie of methamphetamine on the ground. Defendant was arrested and transported to jail, where officials discovered a baggie of marijuana during an inventory search of Defendant's belongings. Defendant was charged with several drug-related crimes. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the methamphetamine was found in the curtilage of the home, that a social guest such as Defendant has standing to assert a host’s Fourth Amendment rights in the curtilage, and that marijuana found on Defendant was fruit of the poisonous tree. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals erred in reversing because the district court’s findings that the backyard was curtilage were supported by substantial competent evidence, and case law supported its legal conclusion that the area was curtilage; (2) a social guest has standing to challenge a search of the curtilage of the host’s residence; and (3) the marijuana should be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree. View "State v. Talkington" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated arson, premeditated first-degree murder, and capital murder. The convictions stemmed from Defendant’s act of setting fire to a residence, which killed two people. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive hard forty life sentences for the murders. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the convictions were multiplicitous. The district court summarily dismissed the claim, concluding that the capital murder conviction would render moot any resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) Defendant’s multiplicity argument failed because multiplicity cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) Defendant’s contention that his sentence was unconstitutional similarly failed. View "State v. Noyce" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and two counts of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the murder and an addition 301 months for the remaining crimes, to run consecutive to his life sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering his sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Petitioners were residents of a state hospital and involuntary participants in the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment program at the hospital. Petitioners filed petitions for habeas corpus relief challenging the Program’s implementation of a new administrative grievance procedure. The district court summarily denied the petitions and assessed the costs of filing the action against each petitioner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the petitions but reversed the assignment of costs to Petitioners. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, whenever a person civilly committed files a habeas petition relating to his or her commitment, the costs shall be assessed to the counties in which the petitioners were determined to be sexually violent predators. View "Merryfield v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of both felony murder and aggravated robbery; (2) Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him based on the State’s alleged destruction of certain evidence. However, because the district court erred in imposing lifetime parole in connection with Defendant’s aggravated robbery conviction, the Court vacated that portion of Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the jury was instructed on alternative means without sufficient evidence as to each means; and (2) the trial court erred in giving three jury instructions that differed from those Defendant proposed before trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction without reaching the merits of Defendant’s alternative means argument, determining that it was not error to omit the jury instructions Defendant opposed. In so holding, the court held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3414(3) requires a trial objection and applied clear error review to Defendant’s jury instruction challenges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s alternative means argument was without merit; (2) section 22-3414(3) requires a party to object on the record to a jury instruction, and a defendant’s failure to comply with the statute invokes clear error review in a subsequent challenge on appeal to that instruction; and (3) Defendant’s arguments relating to the three jury instructions failed. View "State v. Brammer" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child less than fourteen years of age. The sentencing judge found substantial and compelling reasons to grant Defendant’s motion for a departure from a Jessica’s Law mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and ultimately sentenced him to 165 months’ imprisonment. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that there were no substantial and compelling reasons for granting a departure. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the district court made no error in fact or law in determining that the mitigating factors supported substantial and compelling reasons to depart. View "State v. Jolly" on Justia Law