Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Anthony Stapleton committed suicide while he was incarcerated in the Shawnee County Adult Detention Center. Plaintiffs, including the administratrix of Stapleton's estate, filed suit against Defendants, Shawnee County, a detention center guard, and an assistant shift supervisor at the detention center, alleging negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants breached a duty of care, and (2) even if Defendants breached their duty of care, they were immune from suit under the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA). The court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the guard and shift supervisor were not entitled to summary judgment, and (2) Defendants were not entitled to KTCA immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment as (i) the guard and supervisor owed a duty of reasonable care to Stapleton and breached that duty, and (ii) the County was alleged to be vicariously liable for the guard's and supervisor's negligence; and (2) the discretionary function under KTCA was not applicable to immunize Defendants from liability for negligence in this lawsuit. View "Thomas v. Bd. of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Michael Tully of one count of rape. The court of appeals affirmed Tully's conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and district court, holding (1) Tully's rights as protected by Miranda v. Arizona and Doyle v. Ohio were violated by the State's improper comments on Tully's postarrest silence; (2) the district court gave an improper jury instruction on the element of force; (3) the district court abused its discretion in allowing a State's expert witness to offer an opinion beyond her qualifications, which also invaded the province of the jury; and (4) the cumulative errors denied Tully a fair trial. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Tully" on Justia Law

Defendant Anthony Barnes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault. Barnes was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole with a consecutive fourteen months for the aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district judge did not abuse her discretion when she accepted Barnes' jury trial waiver and continued with the trial to the bench despite Barnes' difficulty in choosing between jury and bench trial; (2) the district judge did not err in accepting Barnes' knowing and voluntary waiver of his jury trial right; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Barnes possessed the necessary mental state to commit the crimes. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Mother was the biological mother of two children. Mother's husband, Stepfather, petitioned to adopt the children without the consent of their biological Father. The district court determined that Father's consent to the adoption was unnecessary, terminated Father's parental rights, and granted Stepfather's adoption. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's determination that Father had failed to assume his parental duties for the two consecutive years immediately preceding the adoption petition. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) a natural parent's unfitness will not obviate the need for his or her consent to a stepparent adoption unless the district court finds that the unfitness has prevented the natural parent from assuming the duties of a parent for two consecutive years immediately preceding the filing of the adoption for petition, and (2) the evidence was sufficient in this case to establish that Father had failed to assume the parental duty of providing for his children's needs in the two years preceding the adoption petition. View "In re Adoption of J.M.D." on Justia Law

Lafayette Cosby was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder after a second trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, (1) The district court properly excluded evidence of a question Cosby asked police because it was inadmissible hearsay; (2) the district judge correctly decided not to include a lesser included offense on voluntary manslaughter in the jury instructions; (3) the evidence of premeditation in this case was plainly sufficient to support Cosby's conviction; and (4) the prosecutor did not engage in reversible conduct or improperly shift the burden of proof on the element of premeditation to the defense with a certain comment to the jury because the prosecutor's challenged comment was within the wide latitude allowed the State in discussing the evidence. View "State v. Cosby" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Phouthavy Chanthaseng was convicted for aggravated indecent liberties with a child. On appeal, Chanthaseng argued that the prosecutor committed reversible misconduct by arguing facts not in evidence and commenting on the credibility of the victim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct by discussing the delayed and piecemeal "process of disclosure" of the abuse victim and by using personal experiences of venire panel members as substitute for evidence of disclosure pattern relevant to reliability; (2) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct by referencing the abuse victim's credibility because the prosecutor's comments, when viewed in context, where accompanied by a discussion of the evidence presented at trial and merely asked the jury to draw permissible inferences from that evidence; and (3) the prosecutor's "process of disclosure" misconduct did not constitute plain error requiring reversal of Chanthaseng's conviction. View "State v. Chanthaseng" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an order granting summary judgment to the Board of County Commissioners regarding its challenge to the annexation of certain land by Park City. The district court then granted Park City an extension of time to file a postjudgment motion. Twenty days after the district court's order, Park City filed a motion for postjudgment relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-259(f). The district court denied the motion as untimely, observing that a motion under section 60-259(f) must be filed within ten days after entry of judgment, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-206(b) specifically prohibits a district court from extending this time period. After the thirty-day time limitation for filing notice of appeal had expired, Park City appealed the summary judgment ruling. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal in part for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's decision in part, concluding that the unique circumstances doctrine, which permits an appellate court to exercise jurisdiction over a late appeal if the appellant reasonably relied on some judicial action, did not save the untimely appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the doctrine could not be used to extend a statutory deadline that was jurisdictional. View "Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Park City" on Justia Law

In 2004, Plaintiff sued Defendant, a doctor, alleging negligence. Attorney Scott Mann represented Plaintiff, and an attorney from Bretz Law Offices allegedly agreed to assist as co-counsel. The district court judge granted Defendant's motion to disqualify the Bretz firm and Mann from continued representation of Plaintiff because an associate at Defendant's attorney's firm had left there and gone to work for the Bretz firm. In 2009, Mann entered his appearance for Plaintiff in district court. The district judge granted Defendant's motion to disqualify Mann. On interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district judge abused his discretion in extending the 2004 imputed disqualification of the Bretz firm to Mann because (a) there was no substantial competent evidence to support the legal conclusion that Mann must also be subject to imputed disqualification, and (b) the district judge failed to conduct an appropriate legal analysis of whether Mann was part of the Bretz firm; (2) the district judge's imputed disqualification of the Bretz firm in 2004 exerted no preclusive effect in the 2009 dispute over Mann's status; and (3) Mann was not subject to disqualification in 2009 because he was not likely to be a necessary witness on causation. View "Venters v. Sellers" on Justia Law

Chester Roberts was arrested for the unlawful possession of prescription drugs after he was found in possession of a tablet of generic Lortab, for which he had no prescription. Roberts was charged with one count of possession of hydrocodone in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-4160(a). Roberts filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charge, arguing that section 56-4160(a) does not include hydrocodone combination products such as generic Lortab. The district court granted Roberts' motion. The State appealed the district court's order of dismissal. In response, Roberts argued that the State could not appeal the dismissal because the court's order was equivalent to a judgment of acquittal from which an appeal is barred both by statute and the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Supreme Court held that, under the facts of this case where the order of dismissal was entered before trial, jeopardy had not yet attached, and therefore, the order was not a judgment of acquittal and the State's appeal was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Jared Race was convicted of two counts of rape, three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and four counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district judge did not err by admitting certain testimony about one victim's allegation; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support conviction on the second count of rape of one victim; (3) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying Race's motions for mistrial based on one juror's observation of Race in a courthouse hallway while Race was wearing handcuffs, when the juror denied seeing anything remarkable about Race's appearance and had not shared his observation with other jurors; (4) the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying a defense motion for mistrial when a juror was absent from the jury deliberations room for two minutes and Race did not demonstrate the jury deliberations continued during that time; and (5) error in failing to instruct the jury on the element of Race's age was harmless when Race's testimony confirming his age of eighteen years or older at the time of the offenses was uncontested. View "State v. Race" on Justia Law