Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and criminal threat. The court of appeals affirmed on direct appeal. The Supreme Court accepted review to address Defendant’s claims that the prosecutor committed three separate acts of prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court of appeals applied the prosecutorial misconduct standard as explained in State v. Tosh in rejecting Defendant’s contentions of prosecutorial misconduct. Before the Supreme Court Defendant argued that this traditional multi-prong test was flawed because it leaves open the possibility the misconduct affected the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s criticism of the traditional prosecutorial misconduct standard was unwarranted; and (2) the court of appeals correctly found that there was no merit to two of Defendant’s misconduct claims, and the prosecutor’s misconduct in using a jigsaw puzzle analogy during voir dire and closing arguments did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Chad Taylor received the most votes in the Democratic Party primary for United States Senate for Kansas and was declared the winner. Taylor subsequently drafted a letter of withdrawal from the Senate race and submitted it to Kris Kobach, the Secretary of State. Kobach denied Taylor’s request that his name be withdrawn from nomination for election on the basis that the request did not comply with the requirements for withdrawal under Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-306b(b). Taylor filed a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary restraining order seeking, inter alia, an order directing Kobach to recognize and effectuate Taylor’s letter of withdrawal from the Senate race and prohibiting Kobach from including his name on the ballot race for the 2014 general election. The Supreme Court granted Taylor’s petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the uncontroverted contents of Taylor’s letter to Kobach satisfied the statutory requirements for withdrawal, and therefore, Kobach had no discretion to refuse to remove Taylor’s name from the ballots. View "Taylor v. Kobach" on Justia Law

After the Unified School District No. 365 initiated condemnation proceedings on property owned by Donald and Susan Diebolt, the trial judge appointed three appraisers, who valued the property at $278,800. During the trial, the trial court allowed Donald to express a valuation opinion as to the property but excluded Donald’s testimony regarding the value of the property that was not relevant to the jury’s determination and that was beyond Donald’s expertise. The Diebolts appealed the trial court’s exclusion of the testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse his discretion in excluding the evidence, where Donald was not qualified to perform a cost appraisal and did not have appraisal expertise.View "Unified Sch. Dist. No. 365 v. Diebolt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and sentenced to hard twenty-five life sentences imposed under Jessica’s Law. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to give a unanimity jury instruction; (2) the district court abused its discretion in handling Defendant’s motion for a mistrial based on a law enforcement officer’s violation of an order in limine when the officer volunteered that Defendant invoked his postarrest right to remain silent and described the circumstances of that invocation because Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated by the officer’s testimony; and (3) the cumulative impact of these errors substantially prejudiced Defendant’s right to a fair trial.View "State v. Santos-Vega" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple counts of serious sex offenses perpetrated against his four-year-old granddaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant penetrated the child victim’s labia with his finger, which would support the sexual intercourse element of rape; and (2) the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s request to have a psychological evaluation performed on the victim, as Defendant failed to establish any valid reason that would support a finding of compelling circumstances to warrant a psychological examination of the sex abuse victim in this case.View "State v. Eddy" on Justia Law

A petition to convene a citizen-initiated grand jury alleged wrongdoing by the officers and directors of the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas (Unified Government). The grand jury returned an indictment charging Rodney Turner, an attorney who did consulting and legal work for BPU, with two counts of theft and fifty-five counts of presenting a false claim. Turner moved to dismiss the indictment for grand jury abuse and violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Turner did not possess the full panoply of constitutional rights at the investigatory proceedings by the grand jury and that the constitutional violations that did occur during the proceedings did not prejudice him. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment, holding that the record established grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of abuses of process and constitutional violations caused by the State’s agents during the grand jury proceedings. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting death of the social guest of Defendant’s girlfriend. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the district court’s admission of and failure to give limiting instructions on evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs was harmless; (2) the district court correctly refused to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) there was no prosecutorial misconduct arising from references to school shootings during closing argument; and (4) Defendant received a fair trial untainted by cumulative error. View "State v. Story" on Justia Law

A bullet fatally wounded a man sitting inside the house of Defendant's neighbor. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder based upon the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Defendant was sentenced to life with parole eligibility after twenty years for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting prior shooting evidence; (2) Defendant failed to preserve his appeal of the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress his post-Miranda statements to police; and (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of a locked storage area of Defendant’s residence. View "State v. Richard" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with five drug- and firearm-related felonies after a law enforcement officer stopped him for driving a vehicle with a defective headlight and arrested him when he could not produce proof of insurance. The district court concluded that the evidence seized from Defendant’s automobile in the warrantless search incident to his arrest should be suppressed. The court of appeals reversed the suppression ruling. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the search of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal because the warrantless search of Defendant’s vehicle for evidence incident to his arrest was conducted at a time when searches incident to arrest were governed in the state by statute, and the statute in effect at the time the search at issue was conducted did not authorize searches for the purpose of discovering evidence. View "State v. Julian" on Justia Law

In 1988, Defendant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for aggravated robbery and first-degree murder. The sentences were ordered to run consecutive to each other and to the sentences not yet imposed in another case pending against Defendant - 87 CR 412. Twenty-three years later, Defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming a speedy trial violation and that the sentencing court improperly ordered his sentences to run consecutive to the sentences not yet imposed in 87 CR 412. The district court summarily denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant’s speedy trial claim could not be raised in a motion to correct an illegal sentence; and (2) the sentencing court erred by running the sentences in this case consecutive to his sentences in 87 CR 412 because those sentences did not yet exist, but because Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4608(4) required consecutive sentences in this case if Defendant committed the crimes while on release in 87 CR 412, and because the court could not determine from the record whether Defendant was on release at the time he committed these offenses, the case must be remanded.View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law