Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted a testifying law enforcement officer to sit at the prosecution's table during trial; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in permitting a testifying law enforcement officer to remain in the courtroom despite a sequestration order; (3) however, the officer's presence at counsel table and in the courtroom did not prejudice Defendant; and (4) the trial court did not violate Defendant's right to present his theory of defense by refusing to allow defense counsel to introduce evidence of an accomplice's prior felony conviction. View "State v. Sampson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI) with a blood-alcohol concentration of .08 or higher. The DUI charge resulted from a sobriety checkpoint at which Defendant failed field sobriety tests and the ensuing Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish any abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to dismiss the case because the arresting officer destroyed his field notes and failed to preserve the breath sample from the Intoxilyzer 5000 test; (2) the district court did not err in failing to suppress the results of Defendant's breath tests; and (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses by admitting KDHE certification evidence without the testimony of the person certifying those records. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses. Defendant moved to suppress the items found in his vehicle, challenging the validity of the stop and the officer's vehicle search incident to the arrest. The district court denied Defendant's suppression motion and later convicted Defendant as charged. After Defendant was convicted, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant, which rendered the search illegal. The court of appeals refused to apply State v. Daniel, which applied a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for pre-Gant searches conducted under the then-existing authority of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2501(c), and suppressed the drug evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Daniel controlled the outcome in this case, and the good-faith exception applied; and (2) therefore, the district court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress. Remanded. View "State v. Dennis" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with several drug-related offenses and possession of a firearm. Defendant moved to suppress the gun and drug evidence found in his apartment, arguing that the smell of burning marijuana did not provide exigent circumstances justifying a police officer's warrantless and forced entry into his apartment. The district court denied Defendant's motion. The district court subsequently convicted Defendant of all the charges except misdemeanor marijuana possession. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that the plain view exception justified the seizure, inexplicably finding that Defendant had not argued that the officer created the exigency . The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding (1) Defendant clearly argued to both lower courts that the police officer's actions created the exigency, which the officer then used to justify his use of force and warrantless entry to the apartment; and (2) because the officer's conduct preceding the exigency was unreasonable, the officer violated the Fourth Amendment and therefore could not rely upon the exigent circumstances exception to justify his warrantless entry into Defendant's apartment. View "State v. Campbell" on Justia Law

On the second anniversary of her husband Curley's death, Plaintiff, individually and as the representative of the estate of Curley, filed a lawsuit against defendants Doctor and Hospital, in which she raised wrongful death and survival claims based on alleged medical malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, finding that Plaintiff's claims were barred by a two-year limitation period. In so concluding, the court found that the causes of action accrued on the last date on which Defendants' negligence could have occurred and the date on which Curley's injuries were first ascertainable. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the basis for Plaintiff's lawsuit did not accrue until Curley's death. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals' judgment as to the wrongful death action, holding that a claim for wrongful death accrues on the date of death unless information regarding the fact of death or the wrongful act that causes the death was concealed or misrepresented; and (2) reversed the court of appeals' holding regarding the statute of limitations applicable to the survival action, holding that the survival action in this case was barred by the statute of limitations. View "Martin v. Naik" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated criminal sodomy. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, remanded a portion of Defendant's sentence for additional findings, and vacated the electronic monitoring and no contact conditions elements of Defendant's sentence, holding (1) aggravated criminal sodomy, as charged and instructed in this case, did not present an alternative means issue; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on reasonable doubt; (3) the sentencing court erred by imposing electronic monitoring and an order for no contact with the victim; and (4) the sentencing court erred in imposing BID attorney feeds without considering Defendant's ability to pay. Remanded. View "State v. Smyser" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of aggravated robbery and aggravated robbery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress a statement he made during a police interrogation in which he admitted that he participated in the robbery. The district court found that the totality of the circumstances established that Defendant's confession was freely and voluntarily given. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the manner in which Defendant's confession to robbery was obtained was unconstitutionally infirm because the law enforcement officers' coercive tactics and promises of leniency rendered the confession involuntary. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor committed misconduct during rebuttal closing argument by encouraging the jury to return to the jury room and take a poll to determine whether any of them had engaged in conduct similar to the allegations against Defendant. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor's statements during rebuttal were so patently egregious and prejudicial as to constitute misconduct and deprive Defendant of a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Stimec" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for the first-degree premeditated murder of his wife. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the prosecutor misstated the law on premeditation during closing arguments, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence that his wife filed for divorce in the weeks prior to her murder; (3) Defendant was entitled to copies of certain discovery under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3212 and Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3213, and the district court erred to the extent it held that section 22-3212 and section 22-3213 do not authorize a defendant to have personal copies of discovery and witness statements, but the error was harmless; and (4) there was no cumulative error in this case necessitating reversal. View "State v. Marks" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a claim with his Insurer under his policy for stolen tools and equipment, which Insurer denied. Plaintiff sued. The district court granted summary judgment for Insurer. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for Plaintiff. On remand, Plaintiff requested and received attorney fees related to both the district court and the appellate proceedings. The court of appeals reversed the award of appellate attorney fees, concluding Plaintiff had waived his right to appellate fees by not filing a motion for attorney fees with the court of appeals in the prior appeal. Petitioner filed a motion requesting appellate attorney fees for his second appeal in Snider II. The court of appeals awarded additional appellate attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed, requesting a judgment for the appellate attorney fees incurred in Snider I and an award of additional fees for the appeal in Snider II. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) correctly applied Supreme Court Rule 7.07(b), Evans v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., and Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-908; and (2) did not err in determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees related this current appeal. View "Snider v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law