Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of the social guest of Defendant’s girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the district court’s admission of and failure to give limiting instructions on evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs was harmless; (2) the district court correctly refused to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no prosecutorial misconduct arising from references to school shootings during closing argument; and (4) Defendant received a fair trial untainted by cumulative error. View "State v. Story" on Justia Law

A bullet fatally wounded a man sitting inside the house of Defendant's neighbor. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Defendant was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after twenty years for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting prior shooting evidence; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements to police; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of a locked storage area of Defendant’s residence. View "State v. Richard" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with five drug- and firearm-related felonies after a law enforcement officer stopped him for driving a vehicle with a defective headlight and arrested him when he could not produce proof of insurance. The district court concluded that the evidence seized from Defendant’s automobile in the warrantless search incident to his arrest should be suppressed. The court of appeals reversed the suppression ruling. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal because the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle for evidence incident to his arrest was conducted at a time when searches incident to arrest were governed in the state by statute, and the statute in effect at the time the search at issue was conducted did not authorize searches for the purpose of discovering evidence. View "State v. Julian" on Justia Law

In 1988, Defendant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for aggravated robbery and first-degree murder. The sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other and to the sentences not yet imposed in another case pending against Defendant - 87 CR 412. Twenty-three years later, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming a speedy trial violation and that the sentencing court improperly ordered his sentences to run consecutive to the sentences not yet imposed in 87 CR 412. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant’s speedy trial claim could not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) the sentencing court erred by running the sentences in this case consecutive to his sentences in 87 CR 412 because those sentences did not yet exist, but because Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4608(4) required consecutive sentences in this case if Defendant committed the crimes while on release in 87 CR 412, and because the court could not determine from the record whether Defendant was on release at the time he committed these offenses, the case must be remanded.View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Consistent with the plea agreement, defense counsel and the State requested concurrent sentences. The sentencing judge sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for the felony-murder conviction and 117 months for the conspiracy conviction. The judge decided not to follow the plea agreement, ordering instead that the sentences be consecutively served. Defendant appealed, arguing that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by not following the parties' recommendation that Defendant’s sentences be served concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the facts of this case, a reasonable person could agree with the sentencing judge’s conclusion that consecutive sentences were appropriate.View "State v. Mosher" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child and one count of sexual exploitation of a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years for his rape of a child conviction and imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for both convictions. Defendant appealed the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sexual exploitation sentence. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the sexual exploitation sentence, holding that the sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment; and (2) vacated sua sponte the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of Defendant’s rape sentence, holding that the district court erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision for Defendant’s rape conviction as part of sentencing him to an off-grid indeterminate life sentence.View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and endangering a child for fatally shooting his ex-wife while his daughter watched nearby. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years to life for the murder conviction and to concurrent one-year jail terms for his child endangerment conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support both of Defendant’s convictions; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct, where the prosecutor committed misconduct in his rebuttal closing argument but the error did not require reversal. View "State v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to two counts of felony murder and one count of aggravated arson. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to the three charges. The district judge denied the motion, concluding that Defendant failed to show that manifest injustice would result if he was unable to withdraw his pleas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to inquire explicitly at Defendant’s plea hearing about promises made to Defendant; (2) Defendant’s defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; and (3) the record did not support Defendant’s assertion that he did not understand the meaning and consequences of a no contest plea.View "State v. Morris" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to attempted rape, attempted second-degree murder, and aiding a felon. The district court judge sentenced Appellant to a term of imprisonment and ordered restitution to remain open for thirty days. Subsequently, the district court judge ordered Appellant to pay more than $32,000 in restitution, including relocation expenses incurred by the victim of the attempted rape. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s order of restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to set the amount of Appellant’s restitution; and (2) substantial competent evidence supported the district court judge’s inclusion of moving expenses for the victim of the attempted rape.View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary for attacking Otis Webb at his home and stealing $950 from Webb’s pockets. During the altercation, Webb knocked a cap off the head of one of the attackers, and DNA collected from the cap connected Defendant to the incident. A jury found Defendant guilty on both counts. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) sufficient evidence, including testimony that Defendant intended to commit a theft as he “remained within” Webb’s house, proved the alternative means of aggravated burglary as charged by the State; (2) the district judge did not err by denying Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude the baseball cap from evidence or by ruling that there was a reasonable certainty the cap had not been materially altered; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request to instruct the jury on battery as a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery; and (4) under the circumstances, the district court was not without jurisdiction to enter an order of restitution twenty-eight days after Defendant’s sentencing hearing. View "State v. Frierson" on Justia Law