Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this original disciplinary proceeding against district judge Timothy H. Henderson (Respondent), the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a formal complaint against Respondent, alleging three counts of judicial misconduct constituting various violations of the Kansas Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent denied that he violated the Code. After a public hearing, the hearing panel found Code violations under all three counts and recommended that Respondent be disciplined by public censure. The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent violated the Code and ordered that Respondent be suspended from his judicial duties for ninety days without pay and that he complete a course in sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation prevention training. View "In re Henderson" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated arson, premeditated first-degree murder, and capital murder. The convictions stemmed from Defendant’s act of setting fire to a residence, which killed two people. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive hard forty life sentences for the murders. Defendant later filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the convictions were multiplicitous. The district court summarily dismissed the claim, concluding that the capital murder conviction would render moot any resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) Defendant’s multiplicity argument failed because multiplicity cannot be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) Defendant’s contention that his sentence was unconstitutional similarly failed. View "State v. Noyce" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree murder, two counts of attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and two counts of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the murder and an addition 301 months for the remaining crimes, to run consecutive to his life sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge abused his discretion in ordering his sentences to run consecutively instead of concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering Defendant’s sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Petitioners were residents of a state hospital and involuntary participants in the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment program at the hospital. Petitioners filed petitions for habeas corpus relief challenging the Program’s implementation of a new administrative grievance procedure. The district court summarily denied the petitions and assessed the costs of filing the action against each petitioner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the petitions but reversed the assignment of costs to Petitioners. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, whenever a person civilly committed files a habeas petition relating to his or her commitment, the costs shall be assessed to the counties in which the petitioners were determined to be sexually violent predators. View "Merryfield v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Kenneth Butler was employed with Colgate-Palmolive Company at the time he died intestate in October 2006. In 2007, Kenneth’s son and sole heir, Franklin Burch, as administrator of Kenneth’s estate, petitioned for a determination and allocation of severance benefits. A district judge entered an allocation order dividing Colgate-Palmolive’s obligations under its severance package on behalf of Kenneth. The court ruled that Kenneth’s father, Leo, was entitled to $63,640 and Kenneth’s estate was entitled to $176,359. Leo moved to set aside the allocation order. The judge denied the motion. Nearly four years later, Burch filed a petition for partial distribution seeking $120,000 from Kenneth’s estate. The partial distribution was approved. Thereafter, Leo’s estate sought to appeal the partial distribution order and also challenged the allocation order and the subsequent rulings refusing to set it aside. The district court disallowed the late appeal, concluding that Leo’s estate had no interest in Kenneth’s estate to pursue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Leo’s estate had no interest in the assets of Kenneth’s estate to preserve when the order of partial distribution was issued because Leo did not take a timely appeal of the allocation order to preserve his interest. View "In re Estate of Butler" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of both felony murder and aggravated robbery; (2) Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the charges against him based on the State’s alleged destruction of certain evidence. However, because the district court erred in imposing lifetime parole in connection with Defendant’s aggravated robbery conviction, the Court vacated that portion of Defendant’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the jury was instructed on alternative means without sufficient evidence as to each means; and (2) the trial court erred in giving three jury instructions that differed from those Defendant proposed before trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction without reaching the merits of Defendant’s alternative means argument, determining that it was not error to omit the jury instructions Defendant opposed. In so holding, the court held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3414(3) requires a trial objection and applied clear error review to Defendant’s jury instruction challenges. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s alternative means argument was without merit; (2) section 22-3414(3) requires a party to object on the record to a jury instruction, and a defendant’s failure to comply with the statute invokes clear error review in a subsequent challenge on appeal to that instruction; and (3) Defendant’s arguments relating to the three jury instructions failed. View "State v. Brammer" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape of a child less than fourteen years of age. The sentencing judge found substantial and compelling reasons to grant Defendant’s motion for a departure from a Jessica’s Law mandatory minimum term of imprisonment and ultimately sentenced him to 165 months’ imprisonment. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that there were no substantial and compelling reasons for granting a departure. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the district court made no error in fact or law in determining that the mitigating factors supported substantial and compelling reasons to depart. View "State v. Jolly" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting Defendant’s statements to law enforcement officers, as the confession was not involuntary and Defendant was not denied his right to counsel during the interrogation; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting into evidence certain hearsay statements; (3) the trial court did not commit clear error when it failed sua sponte to give an instruction on eyewitness testimony; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for premeditated first-degree murder; and (5) Defendant failed to establish that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. View "State v. Betancourt" on Justia Law

Shareholders in a Kansas irrigation corporation brought an action against the president of the corporation, alleging breach of a fiduciary duty and seeking removal of the president as an officer and director. The district court ruled for Defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In Becker I, the Supreme Court reversed on the question of whether the facts supported judgment for Defendant, holding that the courts below had applied incorrect legal standards. On remand, the district court ruled once again for Defendant, determining that Defendant sustained his burden of proving good faith. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the president’s failure to maintain employment records undermined his position such that, as a matter of law, he acted in bad faith. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) the Court of Appeals applied an incorrect standard of review in reaching its decision; and (2) clear and convincing evidence supported a finding that the president acted in fairness and good faith to the corporation. View "Becker v. Knoll" on Justia Law