Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. Defendant appealed, arguing in part that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements and a drawing he provided law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the State did not carry its burden to show Defendant's confessions and drawing were given voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment, and thus the trial court violated Defendant's right to remain silent; and (2) the erroneous admission of this evidence was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "State v. Swindler" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, burglary, and three counts of forgery. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions on direct appeal but reversed and remanded his hard fifty prison term for the first-degree murder conviction because the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when imposing it. On remand, the district court found three aggravating factors were established by a preponderance of the evidence and re-imposed a hard fifty sentence, holding that any one of the aggravating factors outweighed the court's finding in mitigation that the victim physically abused Defendant as a child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the hard fifty sentence under these facts. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree intentional murder and aggravated battery. The sentencing court imposed a controlling, downward durational departure sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed the sentence, concluding that the victim's request for leniency did not constitute a substantial and compelling reason for a departure in this case because the facts established that Defendant had acted with the intent to kill the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision and vacated the sentence imposed, holding that, based on the facts of this case, the victim's request for leniency did not constitute a substantial and compelling reason to depart from the presumptive sentences for each of Defendant's convictions. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Hines" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to twenty-six counts of sexual exploitation of a child. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a downward durational and/or dispositional departure motion, asking the court to depart from the presumptive prison term based on seven mitigating factors. The district court considered each mitigating factor at the sentencing hearing and denied the motion, finding that the mitigating factors were not substantial and compelling. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life-imprisonment sentence. With the exception of vacating a portion of Defendant's sentence imposing lifetime postrelease supervision, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's hard twenty-five life sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's departure motion; and (2) the postrelease lifetime supervision sentence imposed by the district court was illegal. View "State v. Floyd" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of possession of drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The drugs and paraphernalia were first observed in Defendant's apartment by a public housing employee who had made an uninvited entry into the apartment to check for potential damage from a sewer back-up at the facility. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to suppress his statements and the drug-related evidence as being products of an unlawful search and seizure. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that a public housing employee was not a government actor subject to the constitutional restrictions on unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the public housing employees that entered Defendant's apartment in reaction to a maintenance problem were not government actors within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment or the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "State v. Brittingham" on Justia Law

The Kansas State Board of Healing Arts (Board) filed a formal disciplinary action against Dr. Amir Friedman that resulted in an order of the Board revoking Friedman's license to practice medicine and surgery in the state. The district court upheld the Board's order. Friedman appealed, raising several issues, including the question of whether the Board had jurisdiction to initiate a revocation proceeding after Friedman's license had expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Board had jurisdiction to revoke Friedman's license because Friedman was practicing medicine under the authority of a license issued by the Board when he committed the misconduct at issue in the revocation proceeding; and (2) substantial evidence supported the administrative hearing officer's initial order and the Board's final order. View "Friedman v. State Bd. of Healing Arts" on Justia Law

After entering into a plea agreement with the State, Defendant entered no contest pleas to numerous crimes in exchange for the State's promise to recommend at sentencing that the district court impose a controlling term of 102 months' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by making negative comments at sentencing that undermined the parties' recommendation of a 102-month prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's sentences. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence, holding (1) the prosecutor's comments at sentencing effectively undermined her sentencing recommendation to the district court, thereby violating the State's plea agreement with Defendant; and (2) this error was not harmless. Remanded for a new sentencing hearing. View "State v. Urista" on Justia Law

After digital photographs of children engaged in sexual acts were found on Defendant's work computer, Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted sexual exploitation of a child. The district court imposed a fifty-two year sentence of imprisonment, with lifetime postrelease supervision. Defendant appealed, contending that the State violated the plea agreement by failing to remain silent at sentencing. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the prosecutor was not required to "stand silent at sentencing" and that her statements were permissible to correct factual misstatements. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor's questions challenging factual misstatements were appropriate and did not violate the plea agreement; but (2) the prosecutor's comment about Defendant's likelihood of recidivism violated the State's plea agreement promise to stand silent. Remanded. View "State v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Workers Compensation Board awarded Plaintiff benefits under the Workers Compensation Act for an injury he sustained while operating a go-cart at an event sponsored by his employer (Employer). Employer and its insurance carrier (Insurer) appealed the award, claiming that Plaintiff's injuries were not compensable because they were sustained during a recreational or social event that Plaintiff was not required to attend. The court of appeals affirmed the Board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board applied the incorrect legal standard in determining whether Plaintiff's injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment, and the error was not harmless. Remanded to the Board to make the determination based on the statutory criteria of Kan. Stat. Ann. 44-508(f). View "Douglas v. Ad Astra Info. Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant owned a first-priority security interest in LLC. The Cass Trust owned LLC membership interest, and the Cass Trust and Cohen Trust owned common stock shares in Corporation. The Cohen and Cass trustees later made an agreement with Company to sell the membership interests in LLC, including Defendant's first priority security interest in LLC, and Corporation's assets. A dispute arose over whether Defendant was entitled to know details of the sale agreements. Before the sale agreements were to close, Defendant sued the trusts, LLC, and Corporation in Missouri, alleging that the trustees engaged in self-dealing and financially manipulated Corporation and LLC to dilute Defendant's ownership interest. After learning of the lawsuit, Company refused to close the transaction without additional substantive requirements. After closing, the Cohen and Cass trustees filed this lawsuit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant tortiously interfered with their existing contracts and prospective business relationships by filing the lawsuit then faxing to Company a suit copy. The trial court dismissed the claims. The court of appeals affirmed, finding that Defendant could not interfere with a contractual relation by giving Company "truthful information." The Supreme Court reversed because at the time the instant suit was filed, the court of appeals was not in a position to decide the truth of the claims set out in the Missouri action. View "Cohen v. Battaglia" on Justia Law