Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers, as the confession was not involuntary and Defendant was not denied his right to counsel during the interrogation; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence certain hearsay statements; (3) the trial court did not commit clear error when it failed sua sponte to give an instruction on eyewitness testimony; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder; and (5) Defendant failed to establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "State v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer, while working on a saturation patrol, stopped a vehicle driven by Defendant and conducted a DUI investigation. Defendant failed the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test but passed the walk-and-turn and one-leg-stand tests. The officer subsequently requested a preliminary breath test (PBT), the results of which led to Defendant’s arrest and conviction for DUI. Defendant moved to suppress the PBT and breath test results. At the suppression hearing, the district court found that although an HGN test result was inadmissible at trial, it could be used to support “probable cause,” and, under the totality of the circumstances, there was reasonable suspicion to request the PBT. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding (1) the HGN test could be used to establish reasonable suspicion of DUI that would permit a request for a PBT; and (2) even if the HGN test results were excluded, the officer had enough other evidence to form a reasonable suspicion of DUI. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the HGN test results were inappropriately relied upon to establish the requisite reasonable suspicion that permitted the officer to request that Defendant submit to a PBT, and the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "City of Wichita v. Molitor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it denied Defendant’s request for a jury instruction on second-degree intentional murder, but the error was harmless; (2) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not constitute reversible error; and (3) the remaining alleged trial errors raised on appeal were without merit. The Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, however, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial based on Alleyne v. United States because the court made explicit factual findings that subjected Defendant to an enhanced sentence. View "State v. Killings" on Justia Law

After being escorted outside a bar, Defendant was involved in a fight with Scott Nienke. Defendant punched Nienke, and Nienke fell backwards and down to the ground, hitting his head on the bumper of a car. Nienke suffered a serious, life-threatening injury but ultimately survived. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of aggravated battery under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5413(b)(1)(A) because the statute required that he intentionally caused the great bodily harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that only the underlying act that caused the great bodily harm must be intentional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 21-5413(b)(1)(A) requires proof that an aggravated battery defendant acted while knowing that some type of great bodily harm or disfigurement of another person was reasonably certain to result from the defendant’s action; and (2) the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to uphold his conviction of aggravated battery. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for distribution of methamphetamine, unlawful use of a communication facility to arrange a drug sale, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the State established that venue to prosecute the use of a communication facility charge was proper in Lyon County; (2) the district court did not err in failing to instruct on underlying moving violations supporting the fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer charge; (3) the district court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction on the obstruction of official duty charge; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of the distribution of methamphetamine charge; and (5) the imposition of an enhanced sentence was proper. View "State v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of first-degree premeditated murder in the death of Alfred Mack, second-degree intentional murder in the later death of Justin Letourneau, theft, and aggravated assault. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court reversed all of Defendant’s convictions under the cumulative error doctrine, holding (1) the district judge erred in excluding testimony about a statement Letourneau made in the hours before his death; (2) the jury instruction on alternative first-degree murder theories contained a misstatement of law with respect to reasonable doubt; (3) the district judge erred by not instructing the jury to begin its deliberations anew after one juror had been dismissed and replaced by an alternative juror; and (4) the district judge’s failure to recall some members of the jury when one juror raised the issue of jury misconduct after trial. View "State v. Smith-Parker" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree intentional murder for fatally shooting her former partner, Wesley Smith. Prior to trial, Defendant received an evaluation by an expert on battered woman syndrome. The district court refused to allow the report or testimony into evidence and also ruled that evidence of specific instances of Smith’s prior acts of violence were inadmissible. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court violated her right to a fair trial by refusing her request to establish a claim of self-defense based on the battered woman syndrome. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not assert a claim of self-defense or give any indication to the trial court that she was attempting to assert a claim of self-defense at trial, she had no claim on appeal that she was denied the right to present evidence on the theory of self-defense. View "State v. Meeks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty sentence, which was imposed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (2) the district court did not err by admitting testimony concerning a confrontation between Defendant and the victim a few days before the murder, as the testimony was admissible under a hearsay exception to the general exclusionary rule; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; but (4) because section 21-4635 has been found unconstitutional, Defendant’s hard fifty sentence was vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "State v. Coones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. During trial, the judge gave the pattern instructions regarding defense of a dwelling and defense of self and also inserted a sentence in the defense of dwelling instruction that told the jury self-defense was not available to someone is being forced out of dwelling by an individual who is lawfully defending the dwelling. Defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instruction regarding defense of a dwelling incorrectly stated Kansas law as applicable to the facts of this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the pattern instructions given regarding defense of a dwelling and defense of self were not in error; and (2) although the trial judge’s addition to the pattern instructions misstated the law, the error was harmless under the facts of this case. View "State v. Andrew" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and forgery and was sentenced to life in prison, with no parole eligibility for twenty-five years. Nearly eleven years after her sentencing, Appellant filed a motion to withdraw her pleas because of manifest injustice, arguing that her lawyer misinformed her about the charges and possible penalties and that she did not understand the length of the prison sentence to which she could be subject if she entered the pleas. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even if Appellant’s attorney misinformed or failed to fully inform Appellant of the charges and possible penalties, any prejudice from that error was cured by the judge’s thoroughness at the plea hearing. View "State v. Miles" on Justia Law