Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A defendant may not assert self-defense if that defendant is already otherwise committing a forcible felony when he or she commits a separate act of violence.The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of criminal discharge of a firearm into a vehicle under a theory of aiding and abetting, holding that there was no basis for reversal. The primary issue on appeal was whether the district court erred in denying Defendant’s request for an instruction on self-defense. The court of appeals held that the instruction was legally inappropriate in this case because Defendant was charged with a violent felony, which prevented him from asserting a theory of self-defense. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that under the new rule articulated above, the requested instruction was legally appropriate. But because the evidence was not factually appropriate, the district court properly denied Defendant’s request for an instruction on self-defense. The Supreme Court further held that Defendant’s remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "State v. Barlett" on Justia Law

Substantial evidence supported the Workers Compensation Board’s decision to deny workers compensation benefits to Appellant, who was severely injured when he was hit by a drunk driver while walking from a bar to his hotel.At the time of the accident, Appellant was a laborer working an out-of-town roofing job. The Board found that Defendant’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment as defined by the Kansas Workers Compensation Act (KWCA). View "Atkins v. Webcon" on Justia Law

The district court erred in this case by denying Defendant’s petition for DNA testing of hairs found at the crime scene.Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, rape, aggravated robbery, and aggravated intimidation of a witness or victim. Defendant later filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512 asking that collected by previously untested hairs found at the crime scene be tested against the DNA profile of the victim’s boyfriend. In denying the petition, the district court relied on the legal standard from State v. Lackey, 208 P.3d 793 (Kan. 2009)(Lackey I), which had been overruled by State v. Lackey, 286 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2012)(Lackey II), before the district court ruling. The court of appeals affirmed, ruling that while the district court erred in relying on Lackey I, the decision to deny should still be affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the lower courts erred because the testing of hair from the crime scene may have produced exculpatory evidence that was “noncumulative” as required by the statute. View "State v. George" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for felony murder, rape, and aggravated burglary arising from an attack on 100-year-old M.S. in her home.On appeal, Appellant argued, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to support the felony murder conviction because M.S.’s death twenty-one days after the attack did not occur within the res gestate of the underlying felony of rape and because there was no direct causal connection between the rape and M.S.’s death. The Supreme Court held (1) the record supported the jury’s decision that the act causing M.S.’s death occurred within the res gestate of the underlying felony of rape, and the evidence was sufficient to support causation; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the aggravated burglary conviction; (3) an erroneous statement by the prosecutor during closing argument was harmless; and (4) the judge did not err when he refused to give a proposed race-switching instruction. View "State v. Nesbitt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant’s pro se motion to set aside a “void judgment," holding that Appellant’s counsel’s urging that the court treat Appellant’s motion as one under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3210 to withdraw Appellant’s no contest plea accepted by the court nineteen years earlier qualified as invited error.Because Appellant failed to allege the required excusable neglect under section 22-3210’s provision allowing late motions for plea withdrawal, the district court denied the motion on the grounds that it was untimely. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court should have construed his motion as one under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and allowed the untimely filing to prevent manifest injustice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the invited error doctrine applied because Appellant’s counsel twice invited the district court to treat the pleading as a motion to withdraw plea; and (2) the district court properly found that the motion was untimely. View "State v. Parks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Dyron King’s convictions of attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, and other crimes, holding that substantial evidence supported the jury verdict and there was no discernible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) sufficient evidence supported King’s convictions; (2) there were three instances of prosecutorial error in closing arguments, but there was no reasonable possibility the prosecutor’s comments contributed to the verdict; (3) King waived any request to sever his trial from his codefendant’s; and (4) cumulative error did not deprive King of a fair trial. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed and applied the holding in State v. Perkins, 811 P.2d 1142 (Kan. 1991), which held that Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3302 does not mandate that a defendant be present when the discussion concerns whether to hold a competency hearing.During the first day of Defendant’s trial, his attorney spoke with the trial judge and the prosecutor about the attorney’s concerns regarding Defendant’s mental state. Defendant’s attorney did not explicitly ask for a competency examination or a competency hearing. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated section 22-3302 by holding a chambers conference to discuss concerns about his mental state. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the holding in Perkins applies in this case; and (2) the ambiguous language of section 22-3302(7) does not support Defendant’s interpretation that he had a right to be present during the in-chambers discussion about his mental state on the first day of trial. View "State v. Gross" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Husband’s challenge to a 1994 divorce decree that divided Husband’s military retirement benefits as marital property.In 2013, Husband filed a motion to set aside the portion of the 1994 divorce decree awarding Wife a share of his military retirement, arguing that the judgment was void because the district court lacked jurisdiction to divide his military retirement benefits pursuant to the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. 1408 et seq. The district court judge rejected Husband’s jurisdictional argument and awarded Wife her attorney fees. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the USFSPA imposes limitations on a Kansas court’s personal jurisdiction and does not impact the underlying subject-matter jurisdiction granted by the Kansas Constitution and Kansas statutes; (2) the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this case in 1994; (3) the court had personal jurisdiction over Husband in 1994 based on implied consent; and (4) the district court had authority to award attorney fees. View "In re Marriage of Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a Court of Appeals panel suppressing evidence obtained through a suspicionless search of the residence of Appellant, a parolee, holding that the suspicionless search of Appellant’s residence did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The trial court held that the parole officer in this case lacked reasonable suspicion or probable cause to search Appellant’s home but that the Internal Management Policies and Procedures of the Kansas Department of Corrections authorized such parole conditions and were not in violation of Kansas law. The majority of the Court of Appeals panel reversed, holding that the condition in Appellant’s signed parole agreement allowing the residential search was not authorized by Kansas law, as required by State v. Bennett, 200 P.3d 455 (Kan. 2009). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the signed parole agreement stating that Appellant was subject to suspicionless residential searches by his parole officers as a condition of his parole was enough to uphold the parole officer’s suspicionless search. View "State v. Toliver" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Grandmother failed to meet her burden of establishing that she was an interested party in a stepparent adoption proceeding relating to her grandson.The district court concluded that neither the law nor other circumstances conferred standing upon Grandmother to participate in the stepparent adoption because she was not an interested party. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the merits of Grandmother’s claim that she was a parent by virtue of certain agreements and court orders entered in a separate grandparent visitation case, holding that Grandmother failed to establish that she was an interested party under the Kansas Adoption and Relinquishment Act and the Probate Code. View "In re Adoption of T.M.M.H." on Justia Law