Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court issuing a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of an ordinance passed by the City of Topeka making it unlawful for any person to sell cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, tobacco products or liquid nicotine to any person under twenty-one years of age or for any person to buy such items for any person under twenty-one years of age, holding that the ordinance is not preempted and does not conflict with the Kansas Cigarette and Tobacco Products Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 79-3301 et seq.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the ordinance is a constitutionally valid exercise of the City's home rule power under article 12, section 5 of the Kansas Constitution; and (2) the Act does not preempt cities from regulating tobacco products, and the ordinance does not conflict with the Act by imposing greater restrictions. View "DWAGFYS Manufacturing, Inc. v. City of Topeka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that, while certain errors occurred in Defendant's case, the errors were not reversible, either standing alone or cumulatively.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter, but the errors were harmless; (2) the district judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter, but the error was harmless; (3) the district judge did not err by failing to instruct the jury to consider lesser included crimes simultaneously; (4) the district judge did not err by admitting autopsy photographs into evidence; (5) the prosecutor erred in describing a car as stolen, but the error was harmless; (6) any assumed error arising from Defendant's absence from continuance hearings would be reversible; and (7) Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions under the cumulative error doctrine. View "State v. James" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of a majority of the court of appeals panel reversing in part and affirming in part the district court's decision on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that neither Defendant's pre-Miranda statement nor his post-Miranda statement were admissible in evidence.The district court found admissible Defendant's pre-Miranda statement that he had marijuana on his person but suppressed Defendant's pre-Miranda statement that he had marijuana in his car. The district court also ruled that Defendant's post-Miranda statements were admissible because at that point Defendant had voluntarily waived his rights. The court then ruled that Defendant's pre-Miranda statement about the marijuana on his person was admissible and that the doctrines of plain view and inevitable discovery applied to the evidence in Defendant's car. The court of appeals set aside Defendant's convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress his post-Miranda statement as coerced. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the pre-Miranda statement Defendant made surrounding his initial pat-down was not admissible as evidence because he was being interrogated in custody at the time; and (2) Defendant's post-Miranda statement was inadmissible due to implied physical violence toward Defendant. View "State v. Guein" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals remanding Defendant's case for a jury trial on whether a firearm sentence enhancement was appropriate and vacated Defendant's sentence after he pled no contest to drug offenses, holding that the district court must reconsider its decision classifying a prior Florida battery conviction as a person felony and that the resentencing should proceed without the firearm enhancement.The court of appeals concluded that the district court properly calculated Defendant's criminal history score but held that Defendant invalidly waived his right to a jury trial on the firearm enhancement. The Supreme Court vacated the sentences and remanded the case for resentencing, holding (1) applying the clarified standard of review in State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), the district court erred in classifying Defendant's Florida battery conviction as a person crime; and (2) the court of appeals erred by remanding Defendant's case for a jury to determine if the firearm enhancement should apply. View "State v. Obregon" 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 correct his sentence several years after it was imposed, holding that State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019), barred relief.In his motion to correct his sentence, Defendant argued that the sentencing court improperly scored a prior Wyoming conviction as a person crime. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Wyoming conviction was appropriately classified as a person crime on the date the current crime was committed. At issue on appeal was whether the new rule announced in State v. Wetrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), applied to Defendant's sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Wetrich did not apply because, under Murdock, a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. View "State v. Dubry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that Petitioner's pro se motion quoting Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct (KRPC) 1.3 did not trigger the district court's duty to inquire into a potential conflict between Petitioner and his appointed attorney, holding that, assuming error, there was no showing of prejudice.Petitioner was charged with two counts of commercial sexual exploitation of a child. The district court determined that Petitioner was indigent and appointed a public defender to represent him. The jury found Defendant guilty of one count of commercial sexual exploitation of a child. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the district court erred by failing to inquire into his pro se motions voicing dissatisfaction with counsel. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that Petitioner's pro se documents did not convey a request for new counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Petitioner's pro se motions quoting KRPC 1.3 did not allege dissatisfaction with counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, assuming that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to inquire about Petitioner's dissatisfaction with counsel, Petitioner's alleged conflict with counsel did not prejudice Defendant in any way. View "State v. Bacon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed decision of the court of appeals affirming the sentencing court's classification of Defendant's prior misdemeanor convictions for violating a City of Wichita municipal ordinance as person offenses to calculate Defendant's criminal history score, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it held that the district court properly classified the municipal violations as person offenses because the Wichita domestic battery ordinance is narrower than the comparable state statute.Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by classifying four of his prior municipal ordinance convictions, including domestic battery convictions, as person offenses because the domestic battery ordinances were broader than the counterpart Kansas statute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, applying State v. Weitrich, 412 P.3d 984 (Kan. 2018), to this case, the court of appeals correctly held that Defendant's previous domestic battery ordinance violations were person offenses. View "State v. Russ" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree felony murder, attempted aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed a life sentence with the possibility of parole after twenty-five years for the felony murder conviction and 100 months' imprisonment for the attempted aggravated kidnapping, ordering it to run consecutive to Defendant's sentence for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, this district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6819(b). View "State v. Darrah" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree felony murder, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction.Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder after a jury trial and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for fifteen years. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence showed he had consensual sex with the victim and then left before any alleged robbery, kidnapping, or murder occurred. Therefore, he argued, the State failed to offer sufficient evidence to support any of the underlying felonies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions. View "State v. Rucker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court refusing to grant Petitioners' petition to terminate a guardianship and conservatorship over four children in their care, holding that the district court's findings were insufficient to allow proper appellate review.Petitioners Alicia and Sam were the mother and father of four children. The county attorney filed child in need of care (CINC) petitions regarding all four children, and the court gave temporary physical custody of the children to Sam's cousin, Malinda, and her husband, Gregory. Each child was adjudicated a child in need of care. Thereafter, Malinda filed a petition for guardianship and conservatorship. The district court granted the petition and appointed Malinda and Gregory coguardians and coconservators of the children. Petitioners later filed a petition to terminate the guardianship and conservatorship on the grounds that they now had the means to care for the children. The district court denied the petition. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that remand was required for the district court to make findings and legal conclusions that suffice to allow appellate review. View "In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of B.H." on Justia Law