Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, attempted first-degree premeditated murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial in granting the State's request for a continuance; and (2) the district court did erred in giving the jury an eyewitness identification instruction that included the degree of certainty factor disapproved of by the Supreme Court in State v. Mitchell, but because there was no reasonable possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict absent the error, reversal was not required in this case. View "State v. Dobbs" on Justia Law

Steven Novotny appealed his jury convictions of first-degree felony murder and aggravated battery. Novotny argued the district court erred in: (1) denying his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his house; (2) denying his motion to suppress one victim's identification of him as the shooter; and (3) improperly instructing the jury on aiding and abetting. Furthermore, Novotny argued the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct during closing arguments and the cumulative effect of trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. Finding none of these arguments availing, the Supreme Court affirmed Novotny's convictions and sentences. View "Kansas v. Novotny" on Justia Law

Defendant Jazwane Jefferson appealed his convictions of first degree murder and the underlying felony of criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling. On appeal, he argued that the district court erred in failing to suppress his statements, which he contended were obtained during an illegal seizure of his car. The Supreme Court agreed that officers unlawfully seized defendant's car, then used that seizure to obtain the incriminating statements. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the State failed to establish that defendant's statements were sufficiently attenuated from the seizure. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court's suppression ruling and defendant's convictions. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Kansas v. Jefferson" on Justia Law

The Topeka City Council granted the Episcopal church (the Church) a building permit for a parking lot on Bethany Place, a registered state historic site owned by the Church. Friends of Bethany Place, a nonprofit organization, opposed the project and appealed the decision to issue the permit. The district court reversed and ordered the parking lot permit set aside, holding that insufficient evidence existed to support the finding that no feasible and prudent alternatives to the project existed and that all possible planning to minimize harm had been undertaken, and that the Council's decision did not satisfy the "hard look" test required by Reiter v. City of Beloit. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Council did not take a "hard look" at all relevant factors that must be reviewed before authorizing a project that encroaches upon, damages, or destroys historic property, as the Council failed to adequately identify what feasible and prudent alternatives existed and what planning could be done to minimize harm to Bethany Place. Remanded. View "Friends of Bethany Place, Inc. v. City of Topeka" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of sexual intercourse with a child who is under fourteen years of age. Because Defendant was older than seventeen, the crime was an off-grid person felony, and the district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five lifetime prison term. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during her rebuttal closing argument by declaring that the victim was telling the truth, but the error was harmless; and (2) Defendant's sentence did not violate the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights' proscription against cruel or unusual punishment. View "State v. Ochs" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and first-degree felony murder based on the underlying felony of aggravated robbery. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the aggravated robbery was accomplished by "threat of bodily harm" as specifically charged; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's request for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, as the prosecutor's comment about Defendant's attorney did not rise to prejudicial intentional misconduct; and (3) the language in the felony-murder statute does not create alternative means of committing the crime. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of arson, three counts of criminal threat, misdemeanor criminal damage to property, assault, battery, and domestic battery. The Supreme Court (1) reversed two of Defendant's convictions for criminal threat, holding that there can be only one conviction for a single communicated threat regardless of the number of victims who perceive and comprehend the threat; (2) reversed Defendant's conviction for felony criminal damage to property where (i) the evidence established multiple acts, and (ii) the trial court failed to instruct the jury it had to unanimously agree on the act that supported the conviction; and (3) otherwise affirmed, holding that the trial court committed two other errors, but there errors were harmless when considered both individually and cumulatively. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted and sentenced for second-degree unintentional murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court properly refused to instruct the jury on self-defense; (3) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting; (4) the district court did not err in excluding specific evidence of a witness' plea bargain; (5) the identical offense sentencing doctrine did not require reversing and remanding for resentencing; and (7) the district court did not err in including Defendant's prior convictions in her criminal history score without requiring a jury to prove their validity. View "State v. Friday" on Justia Law

After a consolidated jury trial on two homicide cases against Defendant, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting the State's motion to consolidate the two cases for trial after finding that the crimes were of the same or similar character; (2) did not err in allowing the jury to decide whether eyewitness identification evidence was reliable under the totality of the circumstances even though the identification procedure used by the police was unnecessarily suggestive; (3) incorrectly instructed the jury on eyewitness identification testimony, but the error did not prejudice Defendant; and (4) did not err in admitting gang evidence. Lastly, the errors in this proceeding did not deny Defendant his right to a fair trial. View "State v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and convicted of unintentional reckless second-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to 117 months' incarceration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) district court did not deny Defendant his right to present his theory of defense by refusing to admit Defendant's expert witness testimony; (2) the district court properly denied Defendant's motion to suppress his statements to investigators; (3) Defendant's argument that witnesses inappropriately commented on his credibility was not preserved for appeal; (4) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument, but the error was harmless; (5) the identical offense sentencing doctrine did not require reversing and remanding for resentencing; and (7) the district court did not err in applying a Board of Indigents' Defense application fee. View "State v. Bridges" on Justia Law