Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State charged Appellant with multiple offenses related to the murders of six women. The murders constituted parts of a common scheme or course of conduct. Appellant was sentenced to death for his convictions for two counts of capital murder. On appeal, Appellant raised nineteen general claims of reversible error covering the entire trial proceedings, as well as a variety of sub-claims. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count II; (2) reversed Appellant’s capital murder conviction charged in Count III and his first-degree murder conviction charged in Count V as unconstitutionally multiplicitous with the capital murder conviction in Count II; (3) affirmed the remainder of Appellant’s convictions; (4) affirmed Appellant’s sentence of death under his capital murder conviction in Count II; and (5) vacated the portion of Appellant’s sentence designating certain of his crimes sexually motivated and remanded for a correction of the journal entry. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated robbery. The district court sentenced Defendant to 172 months in prison. Defendant appealed, challenging his sentence. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not err by classifying two of Defendant’s pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) convictions for attempted rape and aggravated burglary as person felonies; but (2) the classification as a person felony of Defendant’s third pre-KSA conviction for burglary was unconstitutional because it was based on a fact that was never proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Luarks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and three counts of criminal sodomy for the sexual abuse of his daughter. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five sentence for the aggravated criminal sodomy count and an additional 118 months’ imprisonment for the remaining counts. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for a State v. Van Cleave hearing to determine whether Defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, either because trial counsel was not constitutionally competent or was not constitutionally conflict-free. View "State v. Moyer" on Justia Law

When Gregory Papineau and Jeri Stephenson divorced, Papineau was ordered to pay monthly child support. In 2010, Papineau became disabled and applied for social security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits for himself and his dependents. In 2012, the Social Security Administration began providing those benefits. Papineau subsequently filed a motion to modify his child support obligation, asking that he be reimbursed or receive a credit for past child-support payments. Specifically, Papineau argued that his children received duplicative payments, both of which satisfied his child support obligations for the period between his application for and the approval of the SSDI derivative benefits. Both the district court and the Court of Appeals determined that Papineau was not entitled to a credit, a reimbursement, or an offset. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a district court may grant a credit to a child-support obligor who is current on child support when a lump-sum payment of accumulated SSDI derivative benefits duplicates the obligor’s support payment, and that credit may be used to offset other support obligations imposed on the obligor; (2) alternatively, a district court may fashion some other remedy permitted under applicable federal statutes and regulations; and (3) because the district court did not recognize the extent of its discretionary powers, this case must be remanded. View "In re Marriage of Stephenson & Papineau" on Justia Law

The two children (“Children”) of the Decedent challenged the Decedent’s 2008 last will and testament and inter vivos trust, which changed his 2004 estate plan to leave full ownership of his entire property to his third wife and the Children’s second stepmother (“Stepmother”), thereby effectively disinheriting the Children. The district court reinstated Decedent’s 2004 estate plan, concluding that the Stepmother had exerted undue influence over Decedent’s execution of the 2008 testamentary documents. The court, however, refused to award the Children attorney fees from Decedent’s estate. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that insufficient evidence existed to support the district court’s finding of suspicious circumstances with respect to the 2008 documents. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals exceeded its standard of review by making its own findings of fact and reweighing the evidence on the undue influence issue; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to award attorney fees. View "Cresto v. Cresto" on Justia Law

After the Prairie Village City Council voted to oust David Scott Morrison from his position on the City Council, the State brought a quo warranto petition requesting that Morrison be removed from office pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1205. The district court entered an order removing Morrison for office, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to show that Morrison willfully engaged in misconduct while in office and willfully neglected to perform a duty enjoined upon him by law. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered that Morrison be reinstated to his public office, concluding that the undisputed facts did not satisfy the criteria for judicial ouster as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed both the district court and the Court of Appeals, holding that the lower courts misapplied the standard required for ouster under sections 60-1205(1) and (2). Remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Morrison" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was once again convicted of felony murder and the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to give lesser included offense instructions to the felony-murder charge; (2) the prosecutor made a misstatement of the law during closing argument, but the misconduct did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (3) the district court did not commit judicial misconduct in giving an instruction warning the jury against considering any information outside of the evidence presented at trial; and (4) Defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated because the State did not prove his prior convictions beyond a reasonable doubt when imposing an enhanced sentence. View "State v. Tahah" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer committed with a deadly weapon. At trial, Defendant presented evidence showing that he was heavily intoxicated when he fired his weapon. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred by instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to aggravated assault to a law enforcement officer. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the district court committed clear error in instructing the jury that voluntary intoxication was not a defense to the charged crimes because it relieved the State of its burden of proving that Defendant acted knowingly, the mental state required to prove assault. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s instruction was not clearly erroneous because aggravated assault of a law enforcement officer committed with a deadly weapon is a general intent crime, and voluntary intoxication is not a defense to the prosecution of a general intent crime. View "State v. Kershaw" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of aggravated sexual battery. The district court sentenced Defendant to thirty-four months’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of sexual battery and that the court erred in failing to appoint new, conflict-free counsel at a hearing on his pro se motion to dismiss counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding (1) Defendant failed to establish that the jury would have reached a different conclusion had the lesser included offense instruction regarding sexual battery been given; and (2) Defendant failed to establish that he was entitled to new counsel. View "State v. Pfannenstiel" on Justia Law

In the underlying “school finance” case, Shawnee Mission School District No. 512 (U.S.D. 512) filed a motion to intervene. Plaintiffs opposed U.S.D. 512’s entry into that litigation, and the State did not object. The district court panel denied the motion to intervene, concluding that the State adequately represented U.S.D. 512’s interests and that the motion to intervene was untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the panel did not abuse its discretion in denying U.S.D. 512’s motion to intervene as a matter of right, as (1) U.S.D. 512’s interests were not adequately represented by the parties in this case; but (2) U.S.D. 512’s motion to intervene was untimely. View "Gannon v. State" on Justia Law