Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

In two cases consolidated for trial, a jury convicted Patrick Naputi on seven counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under the age of fourteen. The district court granted Naputi's departure motion and imposed a sentence that included 122 months of incarceration, lifetime electronic monitoring, and lifetime postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated the portion of the sentence ordering lifetime electronic monitoring in accordance with State v. Jolly, which states that the parole board has the sole authority to impose the electronic monitoring condition of parole. Remanded with instructions to eliminate the electronic monitoring requirement. View "State v. Naputi" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Xavier Miller was convicted of intentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed Miller's conviction. At issue on review was whether the district court clearly erred when it appropriately instructed the jury that it should simultaneously consider the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, but then erroneously gave a contradictory instruction directing the jury to consider the offense of voluntary manslaughter only if it could not agree on the offense of second-degree murder. The Supreme Court reversed Miller's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that there was a real possibility the jury would have rendered a different verdict had it not received the inappropriate and contradictory instruction to consider the lesser-included offenses sequentially rather than simultaneously. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

While FBI task-force officers were looking to execute an arrest warrant for Shane Thompson, the officers saw Defendant Robert Johnson walking on a sidewalk. After requesting identification, the officers searched Johnson and discovered marijuana and crack cocaine. Johnson was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana. Johnson filed a motion to suppress, arguing there was a lack of reasonable suspicion to detain him. The district court denied the motion after listening to testimony describing the similarities between Defendant and Thompson. Johnson was convicted of the charges. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated Defendant's sentences, holding that Johnson was illegally seized because (1) the State failed to meet its burden to show that it was reasonable for the officers to rely on a face sheet in detaining Defendant; and (2) detaining Defendant because he shared the generic common features with Thompson of being a black male with facial hair was not, without more, sufficient to give officers reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Property owners appealed a special tax assessment the Board of County Commissioners levied against real property for cleanup costs the County claimed it incurred while removing dangerous structures and unsightly conditions on that property. The district court found subject matter jurisdiction lacking and granted the County's summary judgment motion. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the property owners' claims could be brought on direct review under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-907(a), which provides injunctive relief against an illegal levy or enforcement of any tax, charge, or assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed and in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the property owners satisfied the jurisdictional burdens under section 60-907(a) on two of its three issues; and (2) because the district court went beyond the jurisdiction question and found for the County on the merits and the court of appeals stopped short of considering the merits of any claims when it found the entire case was jurisdictionally barred, the court of appeals erred in part in its jurisdictional ruling. Remanded to the court of appeals to determine whether the district court properly granted summary judgment as to the remaining claims. View "Barnes v. Board of County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Progressive Products, Inc. (PPI) filed a four-count complaint in district court against Defendants, former employees of PPI, on various theories alleging Defendants misappropriated protected trade secrets. The trade secrets at issue were a formula, computerized customer lists, and a computerized pricing program. The district court entered judgment for PPI, holding that Defendants misappropriated protected trade secrets possessed by PPI. The court then imposed a royalty injunction on Defendants. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) PPI owned protected trade secrets relating to the formula, (2) the price lists were not trade secrets as a matter of law, (3) no evidence supported a finding the customer lists were a trade secret, and (4) the royalty injunction was not supported by the district court's factual findings and did not comport with the available statutory remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment regarding the protected trade secrets but reversed the court of appeals' opinion reversing the remedy the district court ordered, holding that because the district court's findings were incomplete, they did not permit meaningful appellate review. Remanded. View "Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz" on Justia Law

Joseph Pace pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sodomy. Pursuant to the plea agreement, all other counts were dismissed. Pace filed a motion for a downward durational sentencing departure. The district court denied Pace's motion and imposed a life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years. The court also ordered lifetime electronic monitoring when Pace was paroled. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Pace's life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years, (2) affirmed the district court's denial of Pace's downward departure motion, and (3) vacated the parole condition of lifetime electronic monitoring because the imposition of parole conditions, including lifetime electronic monitoring, is the province of the parole board and lies outside the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. View "State v. Pace" on Justia Law

Luiz Mendoza pleaded no contest to rape with a victim who was eleven years old. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed all other charges and agreed to recommend a downward departure to the sentencing grid. Mendoza filed a motion for a downward sentencing departure based on his lack of criminal history. The district court denied the departure motion and sentenced Mendoza to life in prison without parole for twenty-five years. The court also imposed lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime electronic monitoring because Mendoza was convicted of a child sex offense. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed Mendoza's life sentence without parole eligibility, (2) vacated the parole condition of lifetime electronic monitoring because the imposition of parole conditions is the province of the parole board and lies outside the jurisdiction of the district court, and (3) affirmed the district court's denial of the downward departure motion. View "State v. Mendoza" on Justia Law

Shane Marquis was placed on probation after being convicted of drug charges and felony theft. Later, the State sought to revoke Marquis' probation, claiming he failed to successfully complete a required boot camp. At the revocation hearing, the community corrections officer assigned to Marquis' case did not testify, but, instead, the State presented the officer's affidavit. The district court determined that Marquis violated the conditions of his probation and revoked the probation. Marquis appealed, contending that the district court violated his right of confrontation by considering his supervising officer's affidavit without complying with the requirements for the admission of testimonial hearsay set forth in Crawford v. Washington. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that although the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is inapplicable in a probation revocation proceeding, the Fourteenth Amendment affords a probation minimum due process rights as a prerequisite to the revocation of probation. Remanded for the district court to inquire as to whether the State's failure to produce the supervising officer as a witness violated Marquis' due process rights. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law