Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of rape of a child, aggravated battery, abuse of a child, and child endangerment. The Supreme Court remanded for resentencing. After Defendant was resentenced for his rape conviction, he appealed, challenging whether the district court on remand could order the rape sentence to run consecutive to his other sentences. The court of appeals determined that Defendant’s sentence was not reviewable on appeal because the new sentence was within the presumptive range under the Kansas Sentence Guidelines Act (KSGA). The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in dismissing the appeal because appellate jurisdiction exists to determine whether the district court had authority to impose a consecutive sentence, even if that sentence fell within the presumptive range; (2) running the new rape sentence consecutive to the other sentences was a permissible mechanism under the KSGA for the district court to regulate the sentence’s length; and (3) a district court may designate that the sentence for the primary crime of conviction runs consecutive to the defendant’s other sentences under the KSGA’s multiple-conviction sentencing statute. View "State v. Morningstar" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. In a separate penalty phase, the same jury sentenced Defendant to death for the capital offense and to a consecutive controlling sentence of life without the possibility of parole for fifty years on the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Defendant’s convictions with the exception of his conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, which the Court vacated because it was multiplicitous with Defendant’s capital murder conviction; and (2) vacated Defendant’s death sentence, holding that the district court failed properly to instruct the jury on its duty to consider mitigating circumstances. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Gleason" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole after adjudging him an aggravated habitual sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the district court erroneously admitted statements Defendant made in a pretrial notice of alibi, but there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict; and (2) the Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Turner required that Defendant be sentenced as a persistent sex offender rather than as a habitual sex offender. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Greene" on Justia Law

In State v. Bunyard, the Supreme Court held that a defendant may be convicted of rape if intercourse begins consensually but consent is withdrawn after penetration and the intercourse continues by force or fear. Bunyard held that a defendant is entitled to a “reasonable time” in which to act after consent is withdrawn and communicated to the defendant. In this case, Defendant was found guilty of rape. The court of appeals reversed the conviction. Citing Defendant’s testimony that he briefly continued the intercourse after the victim withdrew consent, the court concluded that the district court erred in failing to give a Bunyard instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court disapproves of Bunyard’s “reasonable time to withdraw” language and its definition of “reasonable time”; (2) when a defendant is charged with rape for an offense committed before July 1, 2011 and the evidence suggests the victim initially consented but withdrew consent after penetration, the trial court must instruct the jury as to the elements of rape and give an additional instruction on withdrawn consent; and (3) the additional withdrawn consent instruction was warranted in this case, and the district court’s failure to give it was not harmless. View "State v. Flynn" on Justia Law

Johnson County Sheriff’s Department Master Deputy Michael Maurer cracked a department vehicle’s windshield with a binder while attempting to shoo away a horsefly. Maurer initially reported that the cracked windshield was caused by a rock, but after a fellow deputy reported the true facts, Maurer eventually admitted his responsibility in damaging the windshield. After an investigation and hearing, the Johnson County Sheriff terminated Maurer’s employment for violating the department’s standards on truthfulness. Maurer appealed to the Johnson County Sheriff’s Civil Service Board (CSB), which reversed the Sheriff’s decision. The district court vacated the CSB’s decision and remanded to the CSB. On remand, the CSB upheld the Sheriff’s decision to terminate Maurer. The district court affirmed the CSB’s second decision. The court of appeals affirmed both district court decisions, upholding Maurer’s termination. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s decision to vacate the CSB’s first decision, holding that the CSB exceeded the scope of its authority and its decision was not substantially supported by the evidence. View "Denning v. Johnson County Sheriff's Civil Serv. Bd." on Justia Law

A baby was born premature on a city street in Wichita. A child in need of care (CINC) petition was filed, and custody of the baby was granted to the Secretary of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS). Foster Parents accepted the baby as their foster child, and Mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights. SRS then initiated efforts for Maternal Cousins to adopt the child. Foster Parents, however, also wanted to adopt the child. The CINC court concluded that SRS had failed to make reasonable efforts or progress towards the child’s adoption and granted Foster Parents custody of the child with permission to adopt. The district court approved Foster Parents’ adoption of the child. Maternal Cousins appealed from the CINC proceeding. Foster Parents filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the CINC order was not one of those enumerated in the Revised Kansas Code for Care of Children (Revised Code) as appealable. The court of appeals denied the motion and then reversed the CINC court. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no appellate jurisdiction to review the post-termination decisions at issue under the Revised Code’s appellate jurisdiction statute. View "In re N.A.C." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with crimes arising out of an incident in which she accompanied her boyfriend and his cousin to the apartment of the victim and fatally shot the victim. Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in giving a no-sympathy jury instruction; (2) the district court did not reversibly err in refusing to supplement the pattern jury instruction on aiding and abetting; (3) Defendant’s claim on ineffective assistance of counsel was not properly before the Court; and (4) Defendant’s claim of cumulative error failed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant and three other individuals were prosecuted for the murder of one victim and the assault of another. One defendant entered into a plea agreement, and the other three were convicted at separate jury trials. Defendant was convicted of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court had jurisdiction to convict Defendant of felony murder and aggravated burglary; (2) being an aider and abettor for a crime is not an alternative means of committing the crime, separate and distinct from committing the crime as a principal; (3) the trial court did not err in giving a pattern felony-murder instruction to the jury; and (4) the narrowed jury instructions on the elements of felony murder and aggravated burglary were not erroneous. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Ector Manuel Savala-Quintero sustained injuries when he jumped through the fourth-story window of room in the Wabaunsee County jail where he had been placed by sheriff officials during an investigation. The University of Kansas Hospital Authority sued the Board of Wabaunsee County Commissioners for reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in its treatment of Savala-Quintero. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the County was not obligated to pay the medical expenses of Savala-Quintero because, although Savala-Quintero was temporarily detained at the county jail, he was not a prisoner committed to or held in the jail at the time he was injured. View "Univ. of Kan. Hosp. Auth. v. Bd. of Comm’rs " on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated battery, and attempted aggravated robbery based on an incident in which Defendant snuck into a victim’s vehicle, held a knife to the victim’s throat as the victim was driving, and demanded the victim’s money. After the victim jumped out of the vehicle, Defendant backed the vehicle to where the victim was standing, got out of the vehicle, and continued demanding the victim’s money, ultimately without success. The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction of aggravated robbery, concluding that Defendant never formed the specific intent to take Defendant’s vehicle and that the brief taking of the vehicle was merely incidental to his failed attempt to rob Defendant of his money. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plain language of the robbery statute creates no requirement of specific intent and requires only a “taking” of property, whether the taking is incidental or intentional. View "State v. Suady" on Justia Law