Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the ruling of the district court that Catherine Roll did not have a statutory right to remain at Parsons State Hospital and Training Center, where she had been a long-term resident, holding that the appeal was moot.Defendants sought to relocate Roll, a person with significant mental and physical disabilities, from the Hospital to a community-based treatment center. Through her guardians, Roll opposed the transfer, arguing that, under the Social Security Act (SSA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, the proposed transfer from the Hospital violated her right to choose which facility would provide her treatment. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendants. Roll appealed. Before the Court reached a decision on the merits, Defendants voluntarily provided Roll with the relief she had been seeking by stating their intention to maintain her residence at the Hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot. View "Roll v. Howard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing two of the charges against Appellant, which arose under Wichita Municipal Ordinances (W.M.O.) 3.06.030.A and 3.30.030.A, holding that W.M.O. 3.06.030.A is overbroad.The district court fully vacated Appellant's convictions, finding W.M.O. 3.06.030.A unconstitutionally overbroad because it intrudes on several examples of "Constitutionally protected behaviors." The court of appeals reversed the lower court's conclusion that W.M.O. 3.06.030.A was unconstitutionally overbroad and sua sponte reversed the dismal of the charge arising under W.M.O. 3.30.030.A. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) W.M.O. 3.06.030.A is unconstitutionally overbroad; and (2) the court of appeals erred by sua sponte dismissing the second municipal charge. View "City of Wichita v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 74-2113 defines the rank of major within the classified service under the Kansas Civil Service Act (KCSA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 75-2925 et seq., and that K.A.R. 1-7-4 does not require a former Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) superintendent or assistant superintendent to serve another probationary period when returning to their former rank as contemplated in section 74-2113(a).The Supreme Court answered two questions of law certified to the court by a federal district court in a lawsuit Plaintiff filed against Governor Laura Kelly, Chief of Staff Will Lawrence, and Kansas Highway Patrol Superintendent Herman Jones (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff, who previously served as superintendent of the KHP, alleged that Defendants forced him to resign his employment rather than returning him to the rank he held before his appointment to superintendent. Given the parties' conflicting interpretations of the statutes and regulations and the lack of controlling Kansas precedent on certain issues, the district court certified two questions. The Supreme Court answered the questions as set forth above. View "Bruce v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court's exclusion of polygraph evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to present a complete defense; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to amend the information; (3) although the admission of Defendant's videotaped confession to a previous offense may have been inflammatory, any error was harmless; and (4) cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing this case on the grounds that state law immunized Whichita Police Officer Dexter Betts's use of deadly force in self-defense, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231(a) does not extend its immunity to a defendant's reckless acts while engaged in self-defense that result in unintended injury to an innocent bystander.Betts fired two gunshots at a fast-approaching dog he thought was attacking him and instead injured a young girl sitting nearby. After the State charged Betts with reckless aggravated battery Betts moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that state law immunized his use of deadly force in self-defense even if he did act recklessly. The district court decided a defendant can assert self-defense immunity when charged with a recklessness crime. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the self-defense privilege does not extend to reckless conduct injuring an innocent bystander who was not reasonably perceived as an attacker. View "State v. Betts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search that led to the State charging Defendant with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia with the intent to distribute, holding that the district court properly denied the suppression motion.This appeal arose after police officers detained Defendant while he sat in a minivan in an alleyway. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search, arguing that the seizure of the minivan violated his constitutional rights. The district court concluded that the detention was reasonable and justified under the public safety exception to the warrant requirement. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seizure of the minivan was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "State v. Bates" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder and other crimes, holding that an assumed error and a prosecutorial error occurred in the proceedings below, but those errors did not require a reversal of Defendant's convictions.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree, attempted murder in the first degree, conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree, criminal solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, and other crimes. Defendant received a hard twenty-five life sentence for the first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) presuming that the trial court erred in admitting a certain exhibit, there was no reasonable probability that the admission of the exhibit affected the outcome of Defendant's trial; and (2) the prosecutor made improper statements during closing argument, but the prosecutorial error was individually and cumulatively harmless. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) by failing to register, holding that the Legislature's decision to make the crime of failure to register a strict liability felony did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights.On appeal, Defendant argued that Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5203(e) violated his substantive due process rights by making a KORA violation a strict liability crime. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that section 21-5203(e)'s strict liability criminalization of KORA registration violations did not violate Defendant's substantive due process rights. View "State v. Genson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's second pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence for offenses he committed in 1993, holding that the trial court correctly sentenced Appellant.The sentencing court in this case ordered a hard fifteen life sentence with lifetime parole for Appellant's conviction of first-degree murder and a consecutive ninety-seven-month term of imprisonment for an aggravated robbery conviction. In his second pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence Appellant sought correction of a supervision term that he argued was required for the aggravated robbery sentence. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4720(b), when a defendant is sentenced for both off-grid and on-grid crimes, the sentencing court only has authority to impose the supervision period associated with the off-grid crime. View "State v. Collier" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the lower courts against the City of Lansing in this dispute between municipalities in Leavenworth Country over the future and assets of a fire district, holding that an interlock agreement governing the fire district was enforceable by its clear terms.Lansing invoked the termination and assets provisions of the agreement, seeking to withdraw from the agreement. Thereafter, two townships petitioned for declaratory judgment to stop the dissolution or alteration of the Fire District, arguing that the sections in the agreement that Lansing relied on to terminate the agreement were illegal and unenforceable. Lansing counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the agreement was enforceable in its entirety. The district court ruled in favor of the townships, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Lansing's notice of termination of the agreement was effective and enforceable. View "Delaware Township v. City of Lansing" on Justia Law