Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder after he admitted stabbing his mother to death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) one comment by the prosecutor during closing arguments was improper, but the misconduct did not deny Appellant a fair trial; (2) the district court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of reckless second-degree murder; (3) the district court did not err in excluding evidence about Appellant's auditory hallucinations prior to the killing; (4) the district court did not err in determining for sentencing purposes that Appellant was not “mentally retarded” under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4634; and (5) the district court did not err in refusing to commit Appellant to the state security hospital rather than prison. View "State v. Maestas" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of rape, blackmail, and breach of privacy. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions for rape and breach of privacy, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision reversing Defendant’s rape conviction, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in concluding that the phrase “force or fear” in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3502(a)(1)(A) establishes a single means of committing rape; and (2) the court of appeals erred in interpreting the term “fear” and in determining that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to show that the victim did not consent to the sexual intercourse because she was overcome by fear. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law

Bank loaned money to Debtor to purchase a vehicle. The loan was secured by a security interest in the vehicle that was recorded in the Kansas Department of Revenue’s (KDOR) digital records and noted on an electronic certificate of title issued in Debtor’s name. Debtor later defaulted on its loan. That same year, Debtor’s former employer (Company) obtained a money judgment against Debtor in an unrelated action and obtained a court order authorizing the attachment of the vehicle. Purchaser, the sole owner of Company, subsequently purchased the vehicle at auction. Thereafter, Bank filed suit against Company and Purchaser (collectively, Defendants), seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that its perfected purchase money security interest was superior to any interests held by Defendants. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank and awarded Bank the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle. The court of appeals affirmed in relevant part. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly considered and applied perfection and priority rules under the Uniform Commercial Code to conclude that Purchaser did not take free and clear of Bank’s security interest. View "Stanley Bank v. Parish" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Doctor and Doctor’s employer (Employer), alleging that Doctor touched her inappropriately and made sexually charged comments during her office visits. Plaintiff settled with Doctor, and the case proceeded against Employer. The district court held that Plaintiff’s claims against Employer were barred by Kan. Stat. Ann. 40-3403(h), which past decisions of the Supreme Court interpreted to cover a covered health care provider’s vicarious liability and any other responsibility, including independent or direct liability, for claims caused by the professional services of another health care provider. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that the lower courts erred in relying on the cases interpreting the statute because the cases were wrongly decided, were distinguishable, or had been effectively overruled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 40-3403(h) barred Employer’s liability, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment. View "Cady v. Schroll" on Justia Law

While driving a vehicle owned by her employer (Employer), Appellant was injured in an accident caused by an underinsured motorist. Appellant claimed underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under Employer’s commercial insurance package policy, which Appellant believed had been insured by Insurer, the same carrier that insured the tortfeasor. Insurer denied Appellant’s claim. A jury awarded Appellant damages, finding the tortfeasor at fault. The district court denied Insurer’s posttrial motion for judgment based upon its claim that it did not issue Employer’s insurance policy and granted Insurer’s motion for credit against the verdict in part, declining, however, to give Insurer credit for future medical expenses. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court’s denial of Insurer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on Insurer’s claim that Appellant named the wrong insurance company as the defendant; (2) reversed the district court’s decision on Insurer’s motion for partial summary judgment on future medical expenses and vacated the jury’s award of future medical expenses; and (3) reversed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for attorney fees. Remanded. View "Bussman v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated criminal sodomy, an off-grid person felony, and sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence that Appellant was previously charged with aggravated incest of his stepdaughter and subsequently entered into a diversion agreement regarding the charge; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of aggravated criminal sodomy; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s motion for a departure sentence. View "State v. Remmert" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not commit reversible error in instructing or failing to instruct the jury on several issues; (2) Defendant’s claim that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress post-Miranda statements he made to police was not preserved for appellate review; (3) Defendant’s argument that the complaint filed against Defendant was defective was without merit; (4) the State presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of the crimes; and (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Littlejohn" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and related offenses. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive hard twenty-five life sentences plus fifty-nine months. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by improperly cross-examining an expert witness for the defense, introducing the concept of “grooming” without evidentiary support and misstating the law by arguing that grooming could establish Defendant’s sexual intent, and vouching for the credibility of the State’s witnesses while openly opining about Defendant’s truthfulness; and (2) the district court erred by excluding testimony about prior false allegations of sexual abuse on the basis that the proffered witnesses were related to Defendant. View "State v. Akins" on Justia Law

After a consolidated jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault, battery, and criminal threat in one case and two counts of failure to register in another case. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in consolidating the two cases because the conditions identified in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3202(1) were not met and there was a reasonable probability that Defendant was prejudiced by the joinder; and (2) the complaint charging Defendant with two counts of failing to register was jurisdictionally defective, but the State was not prevented from recharging Defendant. Reversed and remanded for separate trials. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged as a juvenile with alternative counts of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder, among other charges, for offenses that occurred when Defendant was sixteen years old. The State filed a motion for adult prosecution (MAP) asking the district court to certify Defendant as an adult for prosecution of the charges. The district court granted the MAP and convicted Defendant of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. Defendant later filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred by construing Defendant’s motion as an improper method of attack, but the error was not prejudicial because Defendant’s claim was still considered, and properly denied, on the merits. View "Makthepharak v. State" on Justia Law