Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this personal injury case arising from a bar fight at the San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515 in Clyde, Kansas (VFW) between Plaintiff and a third party patron of the bar the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the VFW, holding that there were still necessary questions of fact left unanswered, and therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate.On appeal, Plaintiff argued that despite the injury occurring off VFW-owned premises, the VFW's duty to protect Plaintiff from the assault, and the breach of that duty, arose while Plaintiff and the third party were still inside the bar. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that negligence could have arisen when all parties were on the VFW's premises. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that questions of fact existed regarding the foreseeability of Plaintiff's injury and whether a breach of duty occurred, precluding summary judgment. View "Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, attempted distribution of a controlled substance, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that any error resulting from the district court's exclusion of certain testimony was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's convictions were not multiplicitous; (2) Defendant's argument that the State committed prosecutorial error when it made certain comments during its cross-examination of a certain witness was in essence an evidentiary question not properly preserved for appeal; (3) the district court's error in upholding a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege and excluding his testimony, if any, was harmless; and (4) the cumulative doctrine did not apply. View "State v. George" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the lower courts determining that a condominium owner's consent was not required before a proposed grocery store could be constructed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment.In 1997, the owner of two adjacent properties (the Borders Parcel and the Development Parcel) in Lawrence executed and recorded an Operation and Easement Agreement (OEA) that restricted the building footprints and prohibited either property from being occupied or used for the sale of groceries. Ownership for the two parcels was subsequently split between two entities. In 2010, a condominium was built on the Development Parcel, and Brian Russell bought a unit in the building. In the instant dispute, the owner of the Borders Parcel sought to construct a building that would exceed the OEA's footprint restriction and contain a grocery store. Russell brought this action claiming that the OEA could not be amended without condominium owner consent. The district court granted summary judgment for the parcel owners. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the OEA's language gave the property owners authority to amend the OEA without Russell's consent; and (2) the property owners could amend the OEA to allow for the proposed changes to the Borders Parcel. View "Russell v. Treanor Investments LLC" on Justia Law

In this extended-jurisdiction juvenile proceeding, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing the juvenile's appeal, holding that the court of appeals had jurisdiction to hear the appeal.The district court gave John P., a juvenile offender, both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence was stayed on the condition that John substantially comply with the terms of the juvenile sentence and not commit a new offense. A week before John's conditional release supervision ended, the State moved to revoke his juvenile sentence and impose the adult one, citing several alleged violations of conditional-release rules. The district court found that John had violated the terms of conditional release and imposed the adult sentence. The court of appeals dismissed John's appeal, determining that it lacked jurisdiction because Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2380(b) doesn't authorize the appeal of a later order imposing an adult sentence in an extended-jurisdiction juvenile proceeding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347(e)(4) gives a juvenile offender who is the subject of an extended jurisdiction juvenile prosecution all the rights an adult defendant would have, which includes the right to appeal an adverse judgment such as the one in this case. View "In re J.P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals affirming in part and reversing in part the order of the district court granting summary judgment for the State and Patrick Saleh, a highway patrol trooper, and dismissing Plaintiff's complaint alleging negligence and vicarious liability, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed precluding summary judgment.Plaintiffs, Shelby Montgomery and Scott Bennett, sustained injuries when a Toyota driven by Robert Horton ran a red light and collided with Bennett's truck. Horton was being pursued by Saleh at the time of the collision. Plaintiffs brought this lawsuit, claiming that Saleh was negligent in failing to cease his pursuit of Horton prior to when he did and that the State was vicariously liable. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The court of appeals reversed the district court's finding on proof of causation and remanded for trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Saleh breached the duty imposed by Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1506; and (2) a dispute existed as to whether Saleh's conduct was a cause in fact of Plaintiffs' injuries. View "Montgomery v. Saleh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of several sex offenses involving two children but vacated the district court's order of lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that the district court erred in ordering two different forms of supervision once Defendant finishes serving his prison sentence.Defendant was convicted of five counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, one count of rape, and other sexual offenses. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and to two supervision terms - lifetime parole for Defendant's off-grid offenses and lifetime postrelease supervision for his on-grid crime. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the jury to hear evidence that he had sexually abused three other children. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the risk of undue prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence; and (2) the district court's imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision must be vacated. View "State v. Satchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the court of appeals dismissing as moot Appellant's appeal from the revocation of his probation following an out-of-state arrest, holding that the court of appeals erred in relying on the Kansas Adult Supervised Population Electronic Repository (KASPER) as evidence to find that Appellant had completed his sentence.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court improperly relied on hearsay testimony to support probation revocation in violation of his due process rights. The court of appeals dismissed the case as moot, relying on a KASPER printout and the State's description of an alleged phone call confirming the KASPER information to find that Appellant had been released from custody. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred to the extent that it relied on KASPER and the State's hearsay assertions; and (2) based on State v. Roat, __ P.3d __ (No. 113.531, this day decided), before dismissing a case as moot, a court must exercise caution and give due consideration to any assertion of affected rights. View "State v. Yazell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals granting the State's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal of the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the calculation of his criminal history, holding that because Defendant failed to challenge the State's motion for involuntary dismissal of his case as moot, dismissal correct.Defendant was convicted of a drug offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a criminal history classification of A. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the district court denied. Defendant appealed. Thereafter, the State sought dismissal on the grounds that Defendant had completed his sentence and the appeal was moot. The court of appeals granted the motion when Defendant did not challenge that motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not preserve his argument for appeal. View "State v. Sykes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the appeal was moot.In 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment based on a criminal history classification of B. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his criminal history classification was incorrect, making his resulting sentence illegal. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. The State moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that the case was moot because Defendant had completed his sentence. The court of appeals granted the motion and dismissed the appeal as moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant failed to offer the court of appeals any challenge or response to the State's motion to dismiss, Defendant failed to preserve any argument for appeal. View "State v. Mayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the court of appeals for consideration of State v. Roat, __ P.3d __ (No. 113,531, this day decided), holding that because the court of appeals did not have the advantage of Roat when it dismissed Defendant's appeal as moot, remand was required.In 2013, Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of criminal threat and two counts of assault against the victim. The district court later revoked Defendant's probation. While Defendant was serving his second round of probation, he committed acts that led to his later conviction for criminal threat. Defendant later filed Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion, which the court summarily dismissed. Defendant appealed, characterizing his original motion as both a section 60-1507 motion and a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot because Defendant had completed his sentence. The Supreme Court remanded the case, holding that, under Roat, the completion of a sentence does not necessarily render a case moot, and courts must carefully analyze whether dismissal would affect an asserted right. View "State v. Ward" on Justia Law