Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Employee was injured in a car accident with a police officer, Employer's workers compensation carrier (Claimant) sought to bring this tort action against City. Claimant gave notice to City that it was pursuing a negligence claim against it, claiming damages in the amount of $19,590. Claimant then brought a lawsuit in the district court, requesting $19,590 in damages. Several months later, Claimant sought leave to amend its petition to raise the amount of alleged damages to $228,088. City objected, arguing that Claimant's notice did not include "a statement of the amount of monetary damages that is being requested" as required under Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-105b(d)(5). The district court granted Claimant's petition, finding that Claimant's statutory notice substantially complied with 12-105b(d). A divided court of appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that the notice was in substantial compliance with the law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances, Claimant's notice substantially complied with 12-105b(d), as the notice contained all the information required by the statute; and (2) when a notice conforms with section 12-105b(d), subsequent amendments to the pleadings are subject to an inquiry into a claimant's bad faith or misleading conduct. View "Cont'l W. Ins. Co. v. Shultz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and child abuse and sentenced to consecutive terms of life and fifty-five months' incarceration with lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions but vacated the postrelease portion of her sentence, holding, inter alia, (1) the prosecutor's comments during closing argument stayed within the bounds of proper comment on the evidence; (2) the district judge's failure to conduct further inquiry upon Defendant's notice of dissatisfaction with her attorney did not violate her Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and the judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to appoint new counsel; (3) the three phrases in the felony-murder statute do not create alternative means; and (4) the lifetime postrelease portion of Defendant's sentence was illegal. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

After Defendant stole a television from Timothy Schulze's home, Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and four counts of theft. The district court ordered restitution in the amount of $1,862, of which the majority was payable to Schulze. Defendant challenged $1,035 of the award, which represented a three-year, $345 annual surcharge placed on Schulze's homeowner's policy by his insurance company for having made a theft claim. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) the sentencing judge did not erroneously include the amount of Schulze's increased insurance cost in the restitution amount; and (2) the sentencing judge did not err by failing to rely on fair market value of the property stolen by Defendant. View "State v. Hand" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was employed at an animal clinic, altered computer records to erase outstanding bills for services performed for her own pets and stole clinic inventory. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of computer crime and left. The trial court imposed restitution in the amount of $14,293. A portion of this amount was based on the retail rather than the wholesale price of the stolen inventory. The court of appeals vacated the restitution order, holding, as a matter of law, that retail value was not a proper measure of restitution because the loss the clinic suffered was the wholesale price it had paid for the inventory. The Supreme Court affirmed but for other reasons, holding (1) in determining restitution for stolen inventory, there is no bright-line rule favoring either retail or wholesale cost; (2) rather, the sentencing judge must consider all the evidence to determine a value that compensates the victim for the actual loss caused by a defendant's crime; and (3) in this case, the sentencing judge's adoption of retail value as an appropriate measure of loss to the clinic for Defendant's theft of inventory was arbitrary and without substantial evidentiary support. View "State v. Hall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant, who provided daycare services for children in her home, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter based on the underlying crime of endangering a child. Defendant appealed, contending that the district court should have supplemented the pattern jury instruction on the elements of endangering a child by explaining to the jury what "reasonable probability" meant. Specifically, Defendant argued that the State had to prove she knew that there was a reasonable probability her actions would endanger the child's life, and that "reasonable probability" was "something more than a faint or remote possibility." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court's failure to define "reasonable probability" was clearly erroneous. View "State v. Cummings" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3504(a)(3)(B). Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4643(a)(1)(3), the district court imposed a life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of twenty-five years for each count and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that section 21-4643(a)(1)(3) violated the Eighth Amendment's proscription against cruel and unusual punishment because a hard twenty-five life sentence was disproportionate to the crime section 21-3504(a)(3)(B) defined. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that imposition of a hard twenty-five life sentence under Jessica's Law for each of Defendant's convictions was not categorically disproportionate and, therefore, was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Ruggles" on Justia Law

A police officer discovered Defendant had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation and, in arresting Defendant, searched Defendant's vehicle where he found drugs and drug paraphernalia. The State charged Defendant with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to suppress the drug evidence, arguing that the search incident to arrest was illegal. The district court denied the suppression motion and found Defendant guilty as charged. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Arizona v. Gant. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that although the search was unlawful under Gant, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. Defendant died while his appeal to the Supreme Court was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's death did not abate this appeal; and (2) based on State v. Dennis and State v. Daniel, application of the good-faith exception was appropriate under the circumstances. View "State v. Karson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. Defendant appealed, arguing that his right to a public trial was violated by the district court's decision to clear the courtroom while photographs of the victims' genitalia were displayed and discussed. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the district court violated Defendant's constitutional right to a public trial by closing the courtroom during display and discussion of photographs of the victims' genitalia; and (2) because the district judge failed to articulate the interests at stake or the alternative considered, the Court was prevented from conducting a proper review and reversal was required. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony-murder, which was based on the underlying felony of child abuse. The conviction stemmed from the death of Defendant's girlfriend's ten-month-old son. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) Defendant failed to preserve his argument that the trial court violated his right to a unanimous verdict because it asked individual jurors, before rather than after the verdict was read, whether it was their verdict; (2) the language in the felony-murder statute does not create alternative means of committing the crime; and (3) the trial court's failure to give a lesser included offense instruction on second-degree intentional murder was harmless. View "State v. Cheffen" on Justia Law

A police officer stopped Defendant after observing him driving a vehicle with expired tags. The officer arrested Defendant after learning Defendant's driving privileges were revoked and then searched Defendant's vehicle, where the officer discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The district court denied Defendant's first motion to suppress, but based on Arizona v. Gant, which was issued two months later, the court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that while the search was unconstitutional under Gant, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on the recently decided State v. Dennis and State v. Daniel, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this case, and suppression was unnecessary. View "State v. Carlton" on Justia Law