Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court suppressing derived from a search because it found that the search resulted directly from a police officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant, holding that this case must be remanded to the district court for further findings of fact.Applying the attenuation doctrine factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the district court suppressed the evidence at issue. The court of appeals reversed the district court's ultimate decision, finding that an intervening circumstance attenuated the taint of the unlawful seizure and thus did not invalidate the later search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to consider the officer's discovery of an arrest warrant as a circumstance that intervened between the officer's illegal detention of Defendant and his search of her purse after arresting her; and (2) because there remained unanswered questions of fact, the case is remanded for the district court to make the appropriate findings of fact under the correct legal standard. View "State v. Tatro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court suppressing evidence obtained after police officers unconstitutionally detained Defendant, holding that the court of appeals erred in applying the attenuation doctrine under the facts of this case.In suppressing evidence obtained in a search of Defendant the district court concluded that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The court of appeals agreed but determined that the attenuation doctrine applied. Specifically, the court concluded that the officers' discovery of a preexisting arrest warrant after they seized and search Defendant attenuated the taint of the unconstitutional seizure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers' duty to execute the arrest warrant did not attenuate the taint of the unlawful seizure. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that a police officer's discovery of an expired tag on Defendant's vehicle did not present an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint of the officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant.Defendant was unconstitutionally detained by a police officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that officers obtained incriminating evidence as the result of an unlawful seizure. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant's initial seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion but that the United States Supreme Court's attenuation doctrine analysis in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), applied to allow the admission of the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no attenuation of the taint of the illegal seizure, and therefore, the district court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Christian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court rejecting Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a new trial without holding a hearing on the merits of his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion on the grounds that he was not legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim.In his motion, Defendant alleged that important information undermining the testimony of the State's star trial witness came to light for the first time while the case was on remand to the district court for resentencing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the request for relief based on the Brady claim fell outside the statutory time limit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Kansas' mandate rule did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Defendant's claims; and (2) there was no final judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3501(1) in this case, and therefore, the district judge failed to recognize that he was legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

In this paternity and custody proceeding, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the judgment of the district court holding David Roy Ogle in contempt and imposing sanctions, holding that the district court should not have conducted the hearing on Whitney D. Jacobs' contempt motion until Ogle was present.Jacobs moved the court to hold Ogle in indirect contempt after Ogle's contact with Jacobs' employer led her to leave her teaching job. After a hearing at which neither Ogle nor his counsel appeared, despite receiving notice of the hearing's time and place, the district court held Ogle in contempt. Relying on Bond v. Albin, 28 P.3d 394 (Kan. 2000), the judge concluded that the contempt hearing could be held in Ogle's absence. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a district judge is allowed to proceed with a contempt hearing once the person accused is present, but not before. The Court remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration of the motion to hold Ogle in indirect contempt. View "S.M.J. v. Ogle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and felony abuse of a child, holding that none of Defendant's claims of error warranted reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) a comment made by the prosecutor during closing argument was a misstatement that did not effectively shift the burden of proof, and there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict; (2) any error in failing to offer a lesser concluded offense instruction on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder was harmless; (3) the district court did not err in admitting two recorded jail calls between Defendant and his mother into evidence; and (4) Defendant's pro se arguments were insufficiently preserved for appellate review. View "Stewart v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it, holding that the State provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because a mistake of fact existed, namely, that Defendant believed the packet she sold contained lawful incense, not a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was required to prove that Defendant had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance she possessed; and (2) the State proved through circumstantial evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance. View "State v. Rizal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the court did not err in instructing the jury and denying Defendant's motion for acquittal.On appeal, Defendant challenged the conspiracy jury instruction, which alleged five overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, arguing that the instruction presented either a multiple acts or alternative means problem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no unanimity instruction was required because alleging several overt acts in furtherance of one conspiracy does not present a multiple acts case; (2) a jury instruction that lists several overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy does not create alternative means for the crime of conspiracy; (3) Defendant invited any jury instruction error; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for acquittal. View "State v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court in this action alleging that Defendants sold or offered to sell unregistered securities and committed fraud in selling or offering to sell securities, holding that Kansas courts did not have jurisdiction to prosecute the criminal charges in this case.Defendants David Lundberg and Michael Elzufon were Minnesota residents who sold as principals for Kansas limited liability corporations what the State alleged to be securities by using intermediaries who resided in California. The California intermediaries, in turn, made sales presentations in California and sold the securities from California to individuals who were not Kansas residents. The district court dismissed the counts against Defendants related to the sales involving the California intermediaries. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the sales originated in Kansas and thus Kansas had territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Kansas Uniform Securities Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 17-21a101 et seq., did not allow Kansas courts to exercise jurisdiction over Defendants because neither an offer to sell nor a sale of securities occurred in Kansas. View "State v. Lundberg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the district court accepting and exercising jurisdiction in these five cases involving the continuation of child in need of care (CINC) proceedings, holding that the Kansas court properly exercised jurisdiction and did not violate Mother's due process rights.The proceedings in this case involved five of Mother's six children. Acting under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a California court transferred these five cases to a Kansas court to continue child in need of care proceedings. The district court ultimately found Mother unfit and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Kansas district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over the CINC proceedings; and (2) the district court did not violate Mother's constitutional procedural due process rights when it failed to conduct a permanency hearing within thirty days of finding that reintegration of the family with Mother did not remain a viable alternative. View "In re A.A.-F." on Justia Law