Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Adrian N. Zongker was a customer at a restaurant in Wichita, Kansas, owned by Oscar and Amelia Acosta. After finishing his meal, Zongker left the restaurant but returned shortly after, searching for a missing receipt and a bag of coins. Oscar helped Zongker search outside, but Zongker shot Oscar in the chest, killing him. Zongker was arrested nearby and confessed to the shooting, claiming the restaurant owners had stolen from him. At trial, Zongker was found competent to stand trial and rejected a plea deal for second-degree murder, opting to go to trial for first-degree murder.The Sedgwick District Court convicted Zongker of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a weapon. Zongker moved for a downward durational departure at sentencing, citing his mental illness, but the court denied the motion and imposed a hard 50 life sentence. Zongker appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of premeditation, improper jury instructions, prosecutorial error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence in part. The court found sufficient evidence of premeditation, noting Zongker's conduct before and after the shooting and his statements indicating intent. The court upheld the additional jury instructions on premeditation, finding them appropriate given the temporal questions in the case. While the court identified prosecutorial errors in misstating facts, it deemed them harmless. The court declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, as it was not preserved for review. The court also found no cumulative error warranting reversal. However, the court vacated the sentence for criminal possession of a weapon, finding it illegal, and remanded for resentencing on that count. View "State v. Zongker" on Justia Law

A father, H.S., was in federal custody during a hearing to terminate his parental rights to his child, A.S. He attended the hearing via Zoom, while the hearing was otherwise conducted in person. The father argued that his limited ability to participate in the hearing amounted to a due process violation.The Leavenworth District Court held a permanency hearing and concluded that reintegration was no longer a viable plan for A.S., and that permanent custodianship or adoption was in the child's best interests. Subsequently, the State moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents. During the termination hearing, the father attended remotely but was unable to testify or meaningfully participate. The district court found the father unfit and terminated his parental rights. The father appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and a due process violation. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the father's claims.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the due process claim. The court held that the father's due process rights were violated because he was not given the opportunity to testify, communicate with counsel, or otherwise fully participate in the hearing. The court emphasized that a parent's right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest was high due to the procedures used, and that the State's interests did not justify the limitations placed on the father's participation.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the district court, and remanded the case for a new termination hearing that ensures the father's due process rights are protected. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law

In March 2021, Bryan Curtis Daniels Jr. pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and one count of domestic battery. The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report, which indicated Daniels had a criminal history score of "C," including a 2003 Georgia burglary conviction classified as a person felony. Daniels did not dispute his criminal history at sentencing and admitted its accuracy. Consequently, the court sentenced him based on this history.Daniels appealed, arguing for the first time that his 2003 Georgia burglary conviction should not have been classified as a person felony, thus rendering his sentence illegal. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Daniels had the burden to prove his criminal history was incorrect. The panel interpreted K.S.A. 21-6811(e)(3)(B) and concluded that the district court had not committed an error of law in classifying the Georgia conviction as a person felony.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether Daniels' Georgia burglary conviction was misclassified. The court held that Daniels' admission to his criminal history, including the classification of the Georgia burglary as a person felony, relieved the State from producing additional evidence. The court also clarified that under K.S.A. 21-6814(c), an offender challenging their previously established criminal history must prove their claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Daniels failed to provide evidence to refute his admission or to show that the district court's classification was incorrect. Consequently, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court, upholding Daniels' sentence. View "State v. Daniels" on Justia Law

In 2019, Z.M. drove a vehicle from which a passenger shot at another car, killing the driver, J.M. Z.M. was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, first-degree felony murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle. He was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence.The Shawnee District Court denied Z.M.'s request for new counsel, finding no conflict of interest or breakdown in communication. Z.M. was found competent to stand trial. At trial, the State presented 34 witnesses, and Z.M. did not present any. The jury found Z.M. guilty on all counts. The court sentenced Z.M. to concurrent sentences for premeditated first-degree murder and criminal discharge of a firearm.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Z.M. alleged five errors: denial of new counsel, abandonment by trial counsel at sentencing, prosecutorial misstatements of law, inappropriate jury instructions, and cumulative errors denying a fair trial. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying new counsel, as the district court conducted an adequate inquiry and found no conflict or breakdown in communication. The court also found no Cronic violation at sentencing, as counsel did advocate for concurrent sentences.The court determined the prosecutor did not misstate the law on aiding and abetting, premeditation, or first-degree murder. The aiding and abetting instruction was legally appropriate, and the phrase "mental culpability" was comprehensible. However, the court acknowledged the jury instructions on first-degree murder and its lesser included offense were not legally appropriate, but this did not rise to the level of clear error. The jury's unanimous verdicts on both premeditated and felony murder indicated the errors did not affect the outcome.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Z.M.'s convictions and sentence, finding no cumulative error that denied him a fair trial. View "State v. Z.M." on Justia Law

Eight rural electric cooperatives (RECs) sought judicial review after the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denied their property valuation challenges for the 2019 and 2020 tax years. The RECs argued that the valuation methodology used by the Kansas Department of Revenue's Property Valuation Division (PVD) violated the requirement for "generally accepted appraisal procedures" under K.S.A. 79-5a04. The RECs elected to go to district court for a trial de novo, which allows for an evidentiary hearing where issues of law and fact are determined anew.The Shawnee County District Court agreed with the RECs, concluding that PVD's valuation methodology violated K.S.A. 79-5a04. The court found that the methodology resulted in non-uniform and unequal valuations of the RECs' properties, thus inflating their property values and taxes. The district court ordered PVD to adjust its methodology to account for the RECs' treatment of margin stabilization adjustments (MSAs) in their net operating income (NOI).On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court exceeded its scope of judicial review by considering issues not raised before BOTA. The Supreme Court held that a trial de novo under K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 74-2426(c)(4)(B) does not expand a district court's scope of judicial review beyond what is permitted by K.S.A. 77-617. The court determined that the RECs had only raised a constitutional issue regarding uniform and equal taxation before BOTA, not a statutory compliance issue under K.S.A. 79-5a04. Therefore, the district court exceeded its scope of review by deciding on the statutory issue.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that the district court improperly expanded its scope of review by addressing the statutory compliance issue that was not litigated before BOTA. View "FreeState Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Larry D. Huggins III was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery following a series of events that led to the deaths of two young men. Huggins and his accomplices planned to rob O.H., a minor who sold marijuana, but the plan went awry, resulting in a shootout. Huggins was injured and later arrested. At trial, Huggins testified, denying any intent to rob and claiming he was merely trying to buy marijuana.The Shawnee District Court found Huggins guilty on all counts. He was sentenced to a hard 25 life sentence for felony murder, with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges, totaling a minimum of 25 years plus 103 months. Huggins was also ordered to pay $2,500 in attorney fees.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed several issues on appeal. Huggins argued that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not match the charging document, which listed two victims for the attempted aggravated robbery. The court found the instructions legally appropriate as they included all statutory elements of the crime. Huggins also claimed insufficient evidence for his convictions, but the court held that the State did not need to prove he intended to rob both victims named in the charging document.Huggins challenged the voluntariness of his statements to police, arguing he was under the influence of medication and fatigued. The court found his statements voluntary, noting he was coherent and calm during the interview. Huggins also contested the admissibility of Facebook messages obtained via a search warrant, but the court ruled he failed to preserve this issue for appeal.The court found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and rejected Huggins' claim of cumulative error. However, the court vacated the imposition of attorney fees, remanding the case for reconsideration of Huggins' ability to pay. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but vacated and remanded the fee imposition. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Williams Nunez was charged with rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person unable to consent due to intoxication. He admitted to the act but claimed the victim was not too intoxicated to consent. A jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 155 months in prison with lifetime postrelease supervision, based on the finding that he was 18 years or older at the time of the crime.Nunez appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey were violated because his age was not determined by the jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, concluding that Nunez had sufficiently admitted his age through various documents and statements, and any Apprendi error was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Nunez's rights under Apprendi were violated. The court held that for a sentencing court to rely on a defendant's admission to increase a sentence, the admission must follow a knowing and voluntary waiver of the jury trial right. Since Nunez did not waive his jury trial rights regarding his age, the court found an Apprendi violation. The court also determined that the error was not harmless because the jury was not presented with evidence of Nunez's age.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. The court directed that Nunez be sentenced to 60 months of postrelease supervision under K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G)(ii), as this was the appropriate term given the lack of a jury finding on his age. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Rodney and Tonda Ross, along with Laura Field, sued Norman Terry Nelson and his corporate entities for trespass and nuisance. Nelson operated an industrial hog-farming operation and installed pipelines beneath a public road to transport treated pig waste to his farmland, which caused odors and fly infestations affecting the Rosses' property. The plaintiffs claimed Nelson did not have permission to install the pipelines and that the resulting conditions constituted a nuisance.The Phillips District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the trespass claim, ruling that Nelson needed the landowners' permission to install the pipelines, which he did not have. The court also denied Nelson's motion for summary judgment on the nuisance claim, concluding that Nelson was not entitled to the statutory presumption of "good agricultural practice" under Kansas' right-to-farm statutes because his actions violated state law by trespassing on the plaintiffs' land. The jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs for both trespass and nuisance, including punitive damages.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings. It held that Nelson's installation of the pipelines exceeded the scope of the public highway easement because it was for his private and exclusive use, thus constituting a trespass. The court also agreed that Nelson was not entitled to the right-to-farm statutory protections because his agricultural activities were not "undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and local laws," given the trespass.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. It held that Nelson's use of the public highway easement for private pipelines was outside the easement's scope and constituted a trespass. The court also held that Nelson's agricultural activities did not conform to state law, disqualifying him from the statutory presumption of good agricultural practices and the right-to-farm protections. View "Ross v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Robert William Doelz was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to a warrantless search, and the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. On remand, the State dropped the charge and did not pursue a retrial. Subsequently, Doelz sought compensation for his wrongful conviction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-5004, which requires proving actual innocence among other criteria.The Shawnee District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, interpreting K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) to require a claimant to prove that their innocence resulted in the reversal of their conviction, dismissal of charges, or a not guilty verdict upon retrial. The court found that Doelz's conviction was reversed due to a Fourth Amendment violation, not because he did not commit the crime. Since there was no evidence explaining why the charges were dismissed, a material fact remained unresolved. At a bench trial, Doelz testified to his innocence, but the court granted the State's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Doelz failed to prove the charges were dismissed due to his innocence.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) requires a claimant to prove actual innocence and that this innocence led to the reversal, dismissal, or acquittal. The court found that the legislative intent behind the statute was to compensate only those who are factually innocent. Since Doelz did not provide evidence that the charges were dismissed because of his innocence, he did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation. View "In the Matter of the Wrongful Conviction of Doelz" on Justia Law

Pettix McMillan was convicted of three counts of attempted first-degree murder after shooting his then-wife and two sons. The State sought upward durational departure sentences for the counts involving his sons, citing their vulnerability and McMillan's fiduciary responsibility. The jury found these aggravating factors, and McMillan filed a motion for a downward departure, which the sentencing judge denied. The judge imposed a total sentence of 1,068 months but did not clearly designate a primary count or specify the sentences for each count.McMillan appealed, and the Kansas Court of Appeals vacated his sentences, finding the total sentence exceeded the statutory maximum. On remand, the district court imposed a new sentence of 1,029 months, designating count two as the primary count but did not consider McMillan's renewed departure motion. McMillan appealed again, and the Court of Appeals held the district court erred by not considering the departure motion and by imposing a new sentence on counts two and three, which it deemed legal in the original sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the original sentences were illegal due to the failure to designate a primary count and specify sentences for each count. The Court found the original sentencing judge's intentions unclear and the journal entry inconsistent. It concluded that the McMillan II panel correctly vacated all sentences and that the McMillan III panel erred in limiting the resentencing to count one. The Court also held that the district court on remand must consider McMillan's departure motion, as the mandate rule did not preclude it. The case was remanded for a third sentencing hearing with directions to consider the departure motion and comply with the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act. View "State v. McMillan" on Justia Law