Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Law enforcement officers employed by the City of Prairie Village set up a controlled drug buy from Defendant to occur in the City of Leawood. As a result of the controlled buy, the State charged Defendant with felony drug charges. Defendant moved to suppress the drugs and an audio recording of the controlled buy, arguing that the Prairie Village officers had obtained that evidence while exercising their police powers outside of their jurisdiction as authorized under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-2401(a)(2). The district court granted the motion and suppressed the evidence. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the Prairie Village officers had jurisdiction in Leawood based on a provision in section 22-2401(a)(2)(b) allowing municipal officers to exceed their jurisdictional boundaries when another jurisdiction requests assistance. The Supreme Court affirmed on different grounds, holding (1) the statutory limitations on the jurisdiction of city officers was put in place to protect the local autonomy of neighboring cities and counties, rather than to create an individual right; and (2) consequently, the suppression of any evidence obtained during a city officer’s unauthorized exercise of police power outside the officer’s employing city will generally not be required. View "State v. Vrabel" on Justia Law

In 2009, E.J.D. entered a plea of no contest to battery on juvenile detention officers. The court determined that the proceedings should be designated as an extended-jurisdiction juvenile prosecution and sentenced E.J.D. to a term in a juvenile correction facility and to an adult criminal sentence. The court stayed the adult criminal sentence on the condition that E.J.D. not violate the provisions of the juvenile sentence and on the condition that he not commit a new offense. The State subsequently moved to revoke the stay of execution of the adult sentence based on numerous disciplinary violations committed by E.J.D. Thereafter, E.J.D. moved for a lesser sentence and a durational departure from his sentence. The district court denied E.J.D.’s motion and ordered him committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory scheme does not allow modification of an adult sentence after a determination that a juvenile has violated the terms and conditions of an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution; and (2) the court of appeals correctly determined that the evidence supported the district court’s decision to revoke the stay of execution of the adult sentence. View "In re E.J.D." on Justia Law

A seven-year-old child was killed in a one-car rollover crash. The child’s parents had periodically traded driving duties during the trip, and Mother was driving when the accident occurred. Father brought a wrongful death action against Mother, alleging that Mother’s negligence was the proximate cause of the child’s death. The jury found both parties fifty percent at fault, which resulted in a judgment in favor of Mother. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) this action was not barred because Mother was both a potential tortfeasor and heir at law; (2) the district court did not err in denying Mother’s motion for summary judgment and her motion for judgment as a matter of law; and (3) the district court erred in instructing the jury on comparative fault, and the error was not harmless. View "Siruta v. Siruta" on Justia Law

In 2008, the City of Basehor initiated a unilateral annexation of Cedar Lake Estates (Estates), a platted subdivision adjoining the City. Trustees of the Stueckemann Living Trust and the Cedar Lake Association (collectively, the Stueckemanns), sued the City seeking to invalidate the annexation on multiple grounds. The district court rejected all of the Stueckemanns’ contentions and upheld the City’s annexation. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court and court of appeals did not err by concluding that (1) the City’s plan adequately described the land subject to the annexation; (2) the City’s service plan for police protection and for street and infrastructure maintenance was adequate; and (3) the City’s annexation was reasonable. View "Stueckemann v. City of Basehor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of six drug offenses. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, resulting in a reversal of one of Defendant’s convictions and the vacating of one of his sentences. Those issues were not before the Supreme Court for review. On appeal, Defendant sought the Court’s review of that portion of the court of appeals’ decision that was adverse to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his vehicle; (2) convicting Defendant for the separate offenses of possessing red phosphorous and iodine and possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, as those convictions were not multiplicitous; and (3) using Defendant’s prior convictions to enhance his sentence. View "State v. Overman" on Justia Law

In 1969, Grantors and an oil company entered into a continuing oil and gas lease covering Grantors’ property. Less than seven months later, Grantors entered into a mineral deed with Grantee covering the same property. The mineral deed had a primary term of fifteen years. In 2012, Plaintiffs, the sole heirs of Grantors, filed a declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the royalty interest held by Defendants, the sole heirs of Grantee, had terminated. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that because the mineral deed stated that it was subject to the terms of the continuing oil and gas lease and because Grantor was a party to both the lease and the mineral deed, the parties intended that they be read together. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the “subject to” clause in the mineral deed did not incorporate the provisions of the lease; and (2) therefore, Defendants’ mineral interest did not continue past its fifteen-year term. View "Netahla v. Netahla" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense; (2) the district court did not commit clear error by failing to instruct on second-degree intentional murder; (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing arguments by vouching for the credibility of some witnesses, discussing facts not in evidence, and disparaging the defense, but the statements did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (4) the district court did not err in excluding evidence suggesting that a third party might have had a motive to commit the murder; (5) Defendant did not preserve his argument that the district court violated his confrontation rights by limiting cross-examination of a state witness; and (6) the presumed instructional error and the instances of prosecutorial misconduct did not cumulatively deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Knox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections (DOC), took advantage of a statutorily created inmate trust fund to place money in the custody of the DOC for his use while serving his sentence. Plaintiff filed suit in Leavenworth District Court pursuant to the Kansas Uniform Trust Code (KUTC) alleging that Defendants were in breach of trust by charging various fees against the balance held in his inmate fund. Defendants successfully moved to transfer venue to Norton District Court. Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer venue back to Leavenworth District court, claiming that because the inmate trust fund was administered at the Lansing Correctional Facility in Leavenworth County, his claims under the KUTC could only be brought in Leavenworth District Court pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 58a-204. The Norton District Court denied Plaintiff’s motion and granted summary judgment to Defendants on all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Plaintiff could have filed his suit in Norton County under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-602(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the inmate trust is a trust subject to the KUTC; and (2) the KUTC establishes exclusive venue in the county were the inmate trust fund is administered - i.e., in Leavenworth County. View "Matson v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr." on Justia Law

While fleeing the police during a high-speed chase, Defendant collided with another vehicle, killing both occupants. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree felony murder and one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by urging defense counsel to complete voir dire or setting a time limitation on the second day; (2) the district court’s remark in the jury’s presence about the time defense counsel was taking during voir dire was not improper or prejudicial; (3) the district court did not err in refusing to change venue; (4) the prosecutor made a misstatement as to the process for considering lesser included offenses, but the misstatement did not so prejudice the jury as to deny Defendant a fair trial; and (5) the State properly charged felony murder rather than involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence. View "State v. Hudgins" on Justia Law

The decedent in this case died from an acute intra-abdominal bleed from a hematoma with adjacent tissue damage. The day before his death, the decedent visited an emergency department, where CT scans of the decedent’s abdomen, pelvis, and chest were performed and sent to Defendant, a radiologist. The decedent’s widow (Plaintiff) sued the radiologist, alleging that the radiologist negligently evaluated the CT scans. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant’s negligence caused the decedent’s death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly granted judgment for Defendant because Plaintiff failed to establish causation, an essential element of Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim, by failing to establish that the decedent would not have died but for Defendant’s alleged breach of the standard of care. View "Drouhard-Nordhus v. Rosenquist" on Justia Law