Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor did not err in its comments to the jury during closing argument; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the instructions, as a whole, fairly and accurately stated the law and therefore were not erroneous; and (4) the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay $7,000 in attorney fees. View "State v. Buck-Schrag" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings above.On appeal, Defendant argued that the voir dire proceedings were closed to his family members and that not providing space for spectators violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that the voir dire proceeding was open was reasonable and supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to admit certain testimony; and (3) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were not properly before the Supreme Court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

In this matter arising from the district court's distribution of Lanny Lentz's estate among his three daughters the Supreme Court remanded the judgment of the court of appeals holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this appeal because Appellant's posttrial motions did not toll the time for her to appeal, holding that the court of appeals did in fact have jurisdiction over the appeal.Appellant, one of Lentz's daughters, filed a petition to set aside and/or reconsider the final settlement and, simultaneously, an objection to discharge of executrix and petition to disgorge fees for administration paid to the fiduciary. The district court denied the motions. Appellant appealed, claiming that the property values for properties in the final settlement were not supported by substantial competent evidence. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court remanded the case for consideration of the appeal on the merits, holding that Appellant's notice of appeal was timely and that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the appeal. View "In re Estate of Lentz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the sentence imposed conformed to the applicable statutory provisions.In 1997, Defendant pled no contest to first-degree murder for the 1978 killing of his wife. At sentencing, the district court classified a prior New Mexico conviction for an attempted first-degree murder as a person crime when calculating his criminal history score for the Kansas conviction. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that when he committed the Kansas murder the law did not distinguish between person and nonperson crimes, and therefore, his conviction for his "unclassified felony" should be scored as a nonperson crime for the purpose of determining his criminal history. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's life sentence conformed to the statutory provision for Class A felonies at the applicable time of conviction. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Defendant's illegal sentence claim and vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court erred when it looked beyond the elements of Defendant's prior 1976 California juvenile adjudication for burglary to score the adjudication as a person offense.Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and arson. Defendant later moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his prior California burglary adjudication was improperly scored as a person felony. The court of appeals upheld the person classification. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded his case to the district court for resentencing with the burglary adjudication to be scored as a nonperson offense, holding that the district court erred when it scored Defendant's burglary adjudication as a person offense. View "State v. Gales" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for identity theft stemming from his use of personal identifying information belonging to someone else to obtain employment, holding that Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that his convictions were multiplicitous.The State split Defendant's identity theft into two charges to cover the time periods before and after the identity theft statute changed in 2012. On appeal, Defendant argued that his state prosecution for identity theft was preempted by federal law and that his convictions were multiplicitous. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve his multiplicity argument for appeal. View "State v. Ochoa-Lara" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of aggravated arson, holding that no error occurred in the proceedings below.Defendant was fourteen years old when he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the court's certification to try him as an adult violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements Defendant made to police; (2) there was no prosecutorial error; (3) Defendant's Apprendi issue was unpreserved for appeal; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347(e) and authorizing adult prosecution; and (5) the court abused its discretion in applying the factors set out in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38- 2347(e) to authorize a juvenile's adult prosecution. View "State v. Vonachen" on Justia Law

In this protracted litigation over liability and damages resulting from faulty construction on the University of Kansas' Memorial Stadium the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals insofar as it reversed a third award for failing to comply with the mandate rule but vacated the portion of the opinion holding that the third award was not supported by substantial competent evidence.This appeal arose from the district court judge's third attempt at entering a damages and attorney fee award in favor of Walton Construction Company. The court of appeals reversed the award, concluding that the district court failed to abide by the law of the case and the mandate rule and that the award lacked substantial competent evidence. The court of appeals declined to remand for determination of a new award amount. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for a damages and attorney fee award that complies with the binding mandates from the first two appeals in this case, holding that the court of appeals (1) properly found that the trial judge violated the mandate rule with the third damages award; but (2) erred by declining to remand the case to the district court for a new award. View "Building Erection Services Co. v. Walton Construction Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results, which presumptively showed that Defendant was guilty of driving under the influence, holding that Defendant did not persuade the Court to abandon its recent decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019).On appeal, Defendant argued that his warrantless blood test obtained under the implied consent statute was unconstitutional based either on consent or as a search incident to arrest. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that the district court properly considered the results of Defendant's blood test under the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon Perkins; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "City of Kingman v. Ary" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the court of appeals and the district court allowing consideration of Defendant's blood test results obtained under the implied consent statute, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule allowed the district court to consider the results of Defendant's blood test.Defendant filed a motion to suppress the blood test results as unconstitutional. The district court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the good faith exception applied to the results of Defendant's blood test. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant offered no persuasive reason for this Court to abandon its decision in State v. Perkins, 449 P.3d 756 (Kan. 2019), in which the Court held that the good-faith exception applies to breath tests for blood alcohol content collected under the unconstitutional implied consent statute; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in applying the good faith exception, and the district court did not err in holding that Defendant's blood test result was admissible. View "State v. Heim" on Justia Law