Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After being escorted outside a bar, Defendant was involved in a fight with Scott Nienke. Defendant punched Nienke, and Nienke fell backwards and down to the ground, hitting his head on the bumper of a car. Nienke suffered a serious, life-threatening injury but ultimately survived. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of aggravated battery under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5413(b)(1)(A) because the statute required that he intentionally caused the great bodily harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that only the underlying act that caused the great bodily harm must be intentional. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 21-5413(b)(1)(A) requires proof that an aggravated battery defendant acted while knowing that some type of great bodily harm or disfigurement of another person was reasonably certain to result from the defendant’s action; and (2) the evidence against Defendant was sufficient to uphold his conviction of aggravated battery. View "State v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

The day after seeking treatment at Ashland Health Center, a municipal hospital, Ann Krier died. Four days after the executor of Krier’s estate (Plaintiff) submitted a notice of claim to Ashland, asserting claims against the hospital for the alleged negligence of its employees, Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action and a survivor action against one of Ashland’s employees (Defendant). The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, concluding that Plaintiff failed to comply with the notice requirements in Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-105b by not waiting to file the lawsuits until the statutorily required time of 120 days had elapsed after submitting the written notice to the hospital. A divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that failure to comply with section 12-105b(d) does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over a lawsuit against a municipal employee because the jurisdictional bar in the statute unambiguously applies only to lawsuits against municipalities. View "Whaley v. Sharp" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted for distribution of methamphetamine, unlawful use of a communication facility to arrange a drug sale, and fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentence, holding (1) the State established that venue to prosecute the use of a communication facility charge was proper in Lyon County; (2) the district court did not err in failing to instruct on underlying moving violations supporting the fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer charge; (3) the district court did not err in failing to give a unanimity instruction on the obstruction of official duty charge; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of the distribution of methamphetamine charge; and (5) the imposition of an enhanced sentence was proper. View "State v. Castleberry" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of first-degree premeditated murder in the death of Alfred Mack, second-degree intentional murder in the later death of Justin Letourneau, theft, and aggravated assault. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court reversed all of Defendant’s convictions under the cumulative error doctrine, holding (1) the district judge erred in excluding testimony about a statement Letourneau made in the hours before his death; (2) the jury instruction on alternative first-degree murder theories contained a misstatement of law with respect to reasonable doubt; (3) the district judge erred by not instructing the jury to begin its deliberations anew after one juror had been dismissed and replaced by an alternative juror; and (4) the district judge’s failure to recall some members of the jury when one juror raised the issue of jury misconduct after trial. View "State v. Smith-Parker" on Justia Law

Mother was the biological mother of Jocelyn and Justine. Father was the biological father of Justine and acted as Jocelyn’s father from the time she was born. After the parties separated, Father filed a petition requesting residential custody of Justine and a continuing relationship with Jocelyn. After a trial, the district court granted residential custody of Justine to Zachary and granted residential custody of Jocelyn to Justine. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision to award residential custody of Justine to Zachary on a misapplication of Kan. Stat. Ann. 23-3207(b). Remanded. View "Cheney v. Poore" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second-degree intentional murder for fatally shooting her former partner, Wesley Smith. Prior to trial, Defendant received an evaluation by an expert on battered woman syndrome. The district court refused to allow the report or testimony into evidence and also ruled that evidence of specific instances of Smith’s prior acts of violence were inadmissible. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court violated her right to a fair trial by refusing her request to establish a claim of self-defense based on the battered woman syndrome. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant did not assert a claim of self-defense or give any indication to the trial court that she was attempting to assert a claim of self-defense at trial, she had no claim on appeal that she was denied the right to present evidence on the theory of self-defense. View "State v. Meeks" on Justia Law

During his marriage to Wife, Husband, an attorney, drafted a “Post-Nuptial Agreement Dissolution of the Marriage” that reserved most of the assets for Wife. Husband later petitioned for divorce. Wife filed a motion seeking a ruling that the agreement was valid and controlled disposition of the real and personal property in the dispute. The district court concluded that the agreement was void because of the lopsided property division and allocated the couple’s assets based on the court’s determination of what was just and reasonable. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the parties’ agreement was controlled by Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1610(b)(3), which requires a separation agreement to be incorporated into the divorce decree if the court finds it valid, just and equitable; and (2) the district court erred when it determined that the agreement was void as against public policy under the rationale that it “encouraged” divorce, as that common-law analysis was abrogated when the legislature adopted section 60-1610(b)(3)’s “just and equitable” requirement. Remanded for a more detailed review into whether the agreement is just and equitable under section 60-1610(b)(3). View "In re marriage of Traster" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty sentence, which was imposed under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance; (2) the district court did not err by admitting testimony concerning a confrontation between Defendant and the victim a few days before the murder, as the testimony was admissible under a hearsay exception to the general exclusionary rule; (3) the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct; but (4) because section 21-4635 has been found unconstitutional, Defendant’s hard fifty sentence was vacated and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "State v. Coones" on Justia Law

Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-618 is an exception to Kan. Stat. Ann. 59-617’s general rule that no will is effective unless a petition is filed for probate of the will within six months of the date of the testator’s death. After Betty Jo Strader’s will was found in her attorney’s office more than four years after her death and court intestacy proceedings were underway, district court admitted Betty Jo’s will to probate under its interpretation of section 59-618. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by admitting Betty Jo’s will to probate under the statutory exception to section 59-617 after the six-month time limit had expired because her will was not knowingly withheld. View "In re Estate of Strader" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. During trial, the judge gave the pattern instructions regarding defense of a dwelling and defense of self and also inserted a sentence in the defense of dwelling instruction that told the jury self-defense was not available to someone is being forced out of dwelling by an individual who is lawfully defending the dwelling. Defendant appealed, arguing that the jury instruction regarding defense of a dwelling incorrectly stated Kansas law as applicable to the facts of this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the pattern instructions given regarding defense of a dwelling and defense of self were not in error; and (2) although the trial judge’s addition to the pattern instructions misstated the law, the error was harmless under the facts of this case. View "State v. Andrew" on Justia Law