Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen and was sentenced to concurrent life sentences without the possibility of parole for forty years. Defendant appealed, raising five issues relating to alleged trial errors and one issue relating to sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve several of his arguments by not making a timely objection to evidence or not creating a sufficient record for appeal; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. View "State v. Reed" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of stalking and violating a protective order for placing telephone calls from the State prison to his former wife, D.K. D.K. knew, based on her phone’s caller ID, that Defendant was calling her from prison, but D.K. and Defendant never spoke over the telephone. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction for stalking, concluding that insufficient evidence showed that Defendant had committed an “act of communication” as proscribed by the stalking statute, and remanded with instructions that Defendant be convicted of attempted stalking. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Defendant committed an act of communication towards D.K. sufficient to find him guilty of stalking; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in affirming Defendant’s conviction for violating a protective order. View "State v. Kendall" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for findings and conclusions relating to the issue of reopening the defense case based on evidence that emerged after the jury began its deliberations. On remand, the district court concluded that it would be inappropriate to reopen the case to allow Defendant to bring in the evidence because, among other things, the late introduction of the evidence would be prejudicial to the State where the State would have to overcome the likely undue importance attached to the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court performed the duty that the Court instructed it to carry out on remand and did not abuse its discretion in its conclusions regarding the issue of reopening the case. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

A.M.M.-H. was sentenced in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding in which he was given both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence was stayed pending successful completion of his juvenile sentence. After A.M.M.-H. violated the terms of conditional release on his juvenile sentence the district judge revoked conditional release and ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve his adult prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the district judge had discretion to determine whether A.M.M.-H.’s violation of the terms of conditional release warranted revocation of the stay of the adult sentence; and (2) because the record was unclear as to whether the district judge knew he had discretion not to execute the adult sentence upon a finding of violation of the terms of A.M.M.-H.’s conditional release, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the State’s motion to revoke. View "In re A.M.M.-H." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a habeas corpus action alleging, inter alia, that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to challenge an incorrect written jury instruction that diluted the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction and remanded his case for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate counsel’s failure to challenge the incorrect instruction was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to a new trial.View "Miller v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and filed a direct appeal before passing away. At issue was whether defendant's death made the appeal moot. In Kansas, the death of a criminal defendant does not automatically abate a defendant's appeal. The court held, however, that this nonabatement rule does not require the court to consider all issues in an appeal. Rather, an appellate court should consider whether an issue: (1) is of statewide interest and of the nature that public policy demands a decision, such as those issues that would exonerate the defendant; (2) remains a real controversy; or (3) is capable of repetition. In this case, the only issue that meets this criteria is an issue that might clear defendant's name, specifically his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court found no merit to that issue and affirmed the conviction. Because the remaining issues are moot, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "State v. Hollister" on Justia Law

Defendant and his brother were jointly tried, convicted, and sentenced for crimes committed in a series of three incidents in December 2000 in Wichita. Defendant was convicted of fifty counts, including four counts of capital murder, first-degree felony murder, attempted murder, sex crimes, kidnapping, and robbery. In a separate penalty proceeding, Defendant and his brother were sentenced to death for each of the four capital murders committed on December 15. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed thirty-two of Defendant’s fifty convictions, including those for one count of capital murder and for the felony murder; (2) reversed the three remaining convictions for capital murder because of charging and multiplicity errors; (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions for coerced sex acts because of charging and multiplicity errors; and (4) vacated Defendant’s death sentence for the remaining capital murder conviction because the district judge refused to sever the defendants’ penalty phase trials. Remanded. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

Defendant and his brother were jointly tried, convicted, and sentenced for crimes committed in a series of three incidents in December 2000 in Wichita. Defendant was convicted of forty-three counts, including first-degree felony murder, capital murder, first-degree premeditated murder, sex crimes, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. In a separate capital penalty proceeding, Defendant was sentenced to death for each of four capital murders committed on December 15. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed twenty-five of Defendant’s forty-three convictions, including those for one count of capital murder and for the felony murder; (2) reversed the three remaining convictions for capital murder because of charging and multiplicity errors; (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions for coerced sex acts because of charging and multiplicity errors; and (4) vacated Defendant’s death sentence for the remaining capital murder conviction because the district judge refused to sever the defendants’ penalty phase trials. Remanded. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life for his murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in failing to give a lesser included instruction on unintentional second-degree murder; (2) erred by issuing an eyewitness identification jury instruction with the degree of certainty factor, but the error did not justify reversal; (2) erred by responding in writing to jury questions, but the error had no appreciable impact on the jury’s verdict; (3) did not err in refusing to grant Defendant a new trial because the jury learned that Defendant was previously in prison and that he was in custody during the trial; but (4) improperly sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life instead of twenty years to life, improperly subjected Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision, and failed to inquire about Defendant’s ability to reimburse Board of Indigent Defense Services for attorney fees before ordering him to pay $1,000. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and aggravated battery stemming from the death of one child and injuries sustained by another child. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty life sentence for murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial court did not err in failing to give an instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of felony murder or failing to instruct the jury on a theory of reckless aggravated battery; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a witness’s out-of-court statements; (3) the evidence presented to the jury established a compelling case that one child was killed as a direct consequence of child abuse; and (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during voir dire and closing argument. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law