Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant Ranell Turner was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, criminal threat, and kidnapping. Turner had two prior conviction events for rape and one prior conviction event for aggravated criminal sodomy and for deviant sexual assault. At sentencing, the district court classified Turner as an aggravated habitual sex offender and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole for the rape and aggravated criminal sodomy convictions under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4642. Turner appealed, arguing that two other statutes also governed his convictions and sentences that had more lenient sentences. The Supreme Court vacated Turner's sentence after finding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4704 and section 21-4642 overlapped and applying the rule that when the legislature allows two conflicting statutory provisions to coexist, the rule of lenity applies and the courts must follow the statutory provision more favorable to the accused. Remanded for imposition of sentence under section 21-4704. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Leslie Roberts pleaded no contest to one count of rape and was found guilty by the district court. Roberts' crimes subjected him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years in prison under Jessica's Law. The district court denied Roberts' motion for a departure and sentenced him to a life sentence with a mandatory minimum of twenty-five years in prison along with lifetime postrelease supervision. For the first time on appeal, Roberts argued that both aspects of his sentence violated his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the cruel and unusual punishment claim was not preserved for appellate review; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the departure motion. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Kameron King was convicted of possession of cocaine and failure to display a drug tax stamp. King was sentenced to thirty-four months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the officer who arrested King had authority to arrest him on the enclosed porch that was part of his home, and the officer had authority to arrest him for a misdemeanor committed two weeks before; and (2) it was error for the trial court to exclude the testimony of three witnesses, as the evidence was relevant, admissible, and noncumulative and was an integral part of Defendant's theory of defense. Because the error was not harmless, the Court reversed King's convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Marcy Carapezza and Jason Hughes (collectively, Defendants) were convicted of felony murder and other felonies. Following decisions by the Supreme Court remanding the cases for new trials, the district court suppressed certain evidence as being derived from Defendants' immunized inquisition testimony. The State took interlocutory appeals from the district court's suppression orders, contending that the court applied an incorrect burden of proof and that the State did not make an improper use of the immunized statements. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it was unnecessary to determine the standard of proof to be applied to the derivative use of immunized testimony because, under either standard, the government failed to meet its burden of proving that it had not made a derivative use of Defendants' immunized statements. View "State v. Carapezza" on Justia Law

Oscar Armendariz, the owner of a tract of land subject to eminent domain proceedings, appealed the district court's order determining the final distribution of an appraisers' award. Armedariz contended the district court erred in distributing a portion of the award based on quantum meruit to Vernon Jarboe, the attorney for Richard and Angela Britt, who were formerly interested parties to the eminent domain proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's award, holding that the district court lacked statutory authority to award fees to Jarboe. Remanded with directions to enter an order distributing the entire amount of the award in favor of Armendariz. View "Miller v. FW Commercial Props. " on Justia Law

A jury convicted Elgin Robinson of capital murder, rape, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and violation of a protection from abuse order. The 14-year-old victim of Robinson's crimes, C.B., was nine months pregnant with Robinson's child at the time of her murder. The district court sentenced Robinson to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Robinson's convictions and sentence, holding that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Robinson's motion to suppress evidence of Internet searches he conducted prior to the murder in which he searched for information on how to kill a baby and how to find a missing person; (2) denying Robinson's motion to suppress statements he made in a custodial interview regarding his knowledge of C.B.'s disappearance and murder; (3) admitting hearsay statements of C.B., although the court admitted them for the wrong reason; (4) admitting photographs of C.B.'s body and grave; (5) denying Robinson's motion for a change of judge; and (6) instructing the jury on the State's burden of proof. Additionally, the Court held that Robinson was not entitled to be resentenced under the identical offense doctrine. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Twenty-eight years ago, Defendant Randall Murray was convicted of aggravated robbery and felony murder. Before Murray's jury trial, defense counsel filed a motion to determine Murray's competency under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302. The district court found good cause for Murray to undergo a competency evaluation, but the record was silent as to whether a post-evaluation competency hearing was ever held. In 2009, Murray filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he did not receive the required competency hearing, and thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him. The district court summarily denied Murray's motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Murray did or did not receive the competency hearing. View "State v. Murray" on Justia Law

Cherish McCullough and LaShonda Callaway got into a fistfight at a convenience store. After other store patrons broke up the fight, McCullough went to her car, returned with a knife, maneuvered around another person, and fatally stabbed Callaway in the abdomen. McCullough was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. At issue on appeal was whether the jury should have been instructed on self-defense. Under Kansas law, if McCullough willingly engaged in mutual combat she would not be entitled to claim self-defense unless she made a good-faith withdrawal and did everything within her power to avoid the killing. The Supreme Court affirmed McCullough's conviction, holding that because McCullough reengaged the conflict by returning to the store with a knife, she was not entitled to a self-defense instruction. View "State v. McCullough" on Justia Law

Defendant Vicki Johnson was inside her boyfriend's apartment when police officers were dispatched to the apartment on a report of a burglary in progress. When officer Shannon Tucker was questioning Johnson in the kitchen, Johnson reached inside her pursue for cigarettes. Tucker grabbed the pack of cigarettes, looked inside, and discovered a glass pipe. This led Tucker to thoroughly search Johnson's purse, where he found cocaine. Johnson was ultimately convicted of possession of cocaine. Johnson appealed, challenging the existence of reasonable suspicion to justify continuation of her investigatory detention and the officer safety-based seizure and search of the cigarette pack. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Tucker was not permitted to search the pack of cigarettes after removing it from Johnson's control because any threat was neutralized by seizure of the pack. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that once Tucker secured the pack of cigarettes, any threat its contents may have posed was eliminated and no further search was permitted. Remanded. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant Roldolfo Gaona was convicted of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy for incidents involving his stepdaughter, M.L. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in allowing the executive director of Finding Words of Kansas to testify as an expert about the behavior of child victims of sexual abuse, but the error was harmless; (2) the district judge did not err by failing to give a lesser included instruction on attempted aggravated criminal sodomy; (3) it was not error to exclude Gaona's medical records; (4) no cumulative error required reversal of Gaona's convictions; and (5) Gaona was not entitled to vacation of his sentence. View "State v. Gaona" on Justia Law