Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This was a quiet title action challenging a claimed interest to oil and gas rights reserved in 1924 when the landowners sold the surface and mineral estate but kept for themselves and their heirs what was described as a portion of the landowners' one-eighth interest in the oil, gas, or other minerals that might later be developed. The district court and court of appeals held that this reservation was a royalty interest and invalidated it under the rule against perpetuities. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the royalty interest was not void under the rule against perpetuities because it was reserved in the grantors. View "Rucker v. DeLay" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm for shooting and killing Keith Peters after Keith attempted to break up a fight between two rival gangs. Appellant appealed, asserting that the district court erred in (1) instructing the jury it could consider his gang membership, (2) giving an outdated eyewitness identification instruction he requested, and (3) failing to give a lesser included offense instruction, despite his request that the instruction not be given. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in giving a limiting instruction regarding gang evidence; and (2) the doctrine of invited error precluded Appellant's remaining challenges. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant entered into an oral agreement with his sister, Defendant, for the bailment of farm animals and farm equipment on her land. After their cooperative effort to breed horses broke down, Defendant sold her farm and the horses. Plaintiff subsequently retrieved most of his equipment from the farm and sued Defendant for conversion and breach of the bailment contract. Defendant counterclaimed for the expenses of maintaining the equipment and caring for the horses. The district court awarded no damages. The court of appeals affirmed the rulings against Plaintiff but found the district court erred in denying sanctions against Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Plaintiffs' action in tort was not barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the district court erred by rejecting Plaintiff's claim for conversion; (3) the court of appeals correctly found that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to award attorney fees as a sanction, but the question of attorney fees was remanded to the district court for determining the amount of fees to be awarded. View "Schoenholz v. Hinzman" on Justia Law

Following his plea of guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child, Appellant was sentenced to 216 months' imprisonment. The court also granted a downward departure to thirty-six months' probation to be served at a community corrections residential center. Less than a week after completing the residential portion of his probation, Appellant violated his probation. After a hearing, the court revoked Appellant's probation and reimposed Appellant's original sentence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in stating that statutory restrictions limited its authority to impose a lesser sentence, which was an incorrect legal standard. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Ardry" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued her doctor, who mistakenly removed her left ovary during a laparoscopic surgery intended to take the right ovary, and a jury awarded her $759,680 in damages. The district court reduced that amount by $425,000 because of a state law limiting non-economic damages in personal injury lawsuits and a posttrial ruling finding Plaintiff's evidence of future medical expenses insufficient. Both sides appealed. The Supreme Court (1) upheld Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-19a02, which operated to cap Plaintiff's jury award for non-economic damages, as applied to Plaintiff; (2) reversed the district court's decision to strike the jury's award for Plaintiff's future medical expenses and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate that award; and (3) denied the doctor's trial error claims. View "Miller v. Johnson" on Justia Law

This appeal raised the issue of whether a district court can order a child support obligor to cooperate with a child support obligee in the obligee's efforts to obtain insurance on the obligor's life if the obligor objects to the issuance of the life insurance policy. Here, despite the obligor's objection, the district court ordered the obligor to cooperate with the obligee's attempts to obtain insurance on the obligor's life at the obligee's own expense. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a district court cannot issue such an order because the order would be contrary to public policy as expressed by the Kansas Legislature in Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-453(a), which provides that an insurable interest does not exist if a person whose life is insured makes a written request for the termination or nonrenewal of the policy. View "In re Marriage of Hall" on Justia Law

This appeal followed a district court's denial of a defendant's motions for new trial based on postconviction DNA testing that was allowed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512. The postconviction DNA testing produced some results that were favorable to the defendant, some results that confirmed evidence at trial, and some results that were inconclusive because the small amount and the degradation of the DNA prevented DNA matching. Weighing the mixed results of this evidence, the district court concluded there was not a reasonable probability that the new evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial. The Supreme Court affirmed after noting that an abuse of discretion standard of review applies when the issue on appeal is whether a district court erred in ruling on a motion for new trial based on favorable postconviction DNA test results, holding that reasonable people could agree with the district court that the postconviction DNA test evidence was not so material as to make it reasonably probable there would be a different outcome if there were a new trial. View "Haddock v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated burglary, burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting an audio recording of a 911 call made by the murder victim's wife; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of seven uncharged burglaries allegedly committed by Defendant for the purposes of proving identity and plan under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455; (3) the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct; (4) the sentencing court appropriately imposed a hard 50 sentence; and (5) the hard 50 sentencing scheme is constitutional. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated indecent liberties. Defendant appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of his conviction on several grounds. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of aggravated indecent liberties because (1) the State presented no evidence that Defendant engaged in any lewd fondling or touching of the complainant or himself, done or submitted to with the intent to arose or satisfy the sexual desires of the complainant, Defendant, or both; and (2) the State failed to present any evidence, much less sufficient evidence, that Defendant "submitted to lewd fondling or touching" as specified in the jury instruction. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

In the recent case of State v. Bogguess, the Supreme Court held that the lack of an objection during a bench trial that consisted solely of stipulated facts did not preclude appellate review of the pretrial denial of a defendant's motion to suppress. The instant case raised the question of whether the Bogguess holding applies when the bench trial is conducted by a different judge than the one who made the pretrial suppression ruling. The Court concluded that having more than one judge involved in the proceedings did not alter the two-fold rationale of the decision in Bogguess. In this case, the defendant's objection to evidence was preserved, and the court of appeals erred in concluding it was not. View "State v. Kelly" on Justia Law