Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's appeal from the denial of her request for custody of N.E., holding that the doctrine of stare decisis warranted this Court's continued adherence to In re N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014), under which an order terminating parental rights is the last appealable order under Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2273(a), and post-termination orders are not appealable, even if they address custody.Child-in-need-of-care proceedings began when the State took protective custody of N.E. and ended when N.E. was adopted by her foster family. Appellant, N.E.'s grandmother, sought custody of N.E. during the proceedings and appealed the district court's denial of her request. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 38-2273(a), as construed under In re N.A.C., barred appellate review of each of the district court orders from which Appellant appealed. View "In re N.E." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming and remanding this criminal case with directions, holding that there was no error in the district court's award of restitution.Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted theft. The district court sentenced him to ten months in prison and ordered him to pay restitution to the two victims of his crimes as a condition of his postrelease. Defendant appealed his sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the restitution order but remanded for the issuance of a new journal entry clarifying that the payment of restitution was a condition of postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court reversed the remand order and otherwise affirmed, holding that the panel erred in deciding to remand for a nunc pro tunc order and that there was no error in the court of appeals' decision affirming the district court's restitution order. View "State v. Eubanks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence (DUI), in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1567(a)(3), holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction but that an instructional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.Section 8-1567(a)(3) states that driving under the influence is "operating or attempting to operate" any vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving a vehicle. At issue was whether the district court committed reversible error in the jury instructions by failing properly to define the word "operate" as used in the statute. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by denying Defendant's request to modify the instruction to define or replace "operate" as "drive." View "State v. Zeiner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder and his sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for fifty years, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and no error below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding of premeditation; (2) there was no error in the jury instructions; (3) Defendant did not preserve her argument that there was not an adequate showing in the record that her trial counsel received her informed consent to pursue a guilt-based defense; (4) there was no prosecutorial error; and (5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by not ordering a mental evaluation under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3429. View "State v. Hilyard" on Justia Law

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