Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Davontra Alston, who was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, felony first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle for his role in the 2020 shooting death of D'Angelo Payne in Topeka. The State's theory was that Alston conspired with Diquan Clayton, his cousin, and James Boatwright to murder Payne and that he aided and abetted Boatwright and others in the murder. The State built a circumstantial case based on evidence that Clayton and Alston resented Payne's relationship with Danielle Morrison and they felt Payne had disrespected Morrison, Alston, and his family.The district court denied Alston's motion to dismiss the murder and conspiracy convictions as multiplicitous. Alston argued his conviction for conspiracy to commit premeditated murder "covers all the conduct alleged by the State which was attributable directly to" him and his remaining three convictions should be set aside. Alston also filed a motion for a new trial, alleging several trial errors. The district court denied both motions but determined Alston's felony murder conviction merged with his first-degree premeditated murder.In the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Alston argued that his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder under an aiding and abetting theory is duplicitous of his conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial in which he argues the State mischaracterized evidence, the district court erroneously admitted hearsay evidence, and the State committed prosecutorial error. The court rejected Alston's claims and affirmed his convictions. View "State v. Alston" on Justia Law

The case involves a Kansas law, S.B. 95, which effectively bans a common method of second-trimester abortion known as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E), except when necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function. The law was challenged by doctors who perform D & E abortions in Kansas, arguing that it violates the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.The district court granted a temporary injunction, concluding that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas. The Supreme Court affirmed the temporary injunction, ruling that the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects a right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy and that any government infringement of that right must withstand strict scrutiny. The case was remanded to the district court to apply this standard.On remand, the district court granted summary judgment for the doctors, holding that the law does not withstand strict scrutiny and consequently violated the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The State appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the State failed to show that the law is narrowly tailored to further any compelling interest. The court struck down the law as an unconstitutional violation of section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. View "Hodes v. Kobach" on Justia Law

David Cornell Bennett Jr. pleaded guilty to one count of capital murder and three counts of premeditated first-degree murder in December 2017. As part of the plea agreement, Bennett waived his appellate rights. In June 2020, Bennett filed a pro se motion requesting a hearing under State v. Ortiz, alleging that his appointed counsel failed to file an appeal as requested following his sentencing hearing. The State argued that Bennett had already waived his appellate rights under the plea agreement. The district court denied Bennett's motion, finding that Bennett had knowingly waived his appellate rights.The district court's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Bennett argued that his waiver of appellate rights was ambiguous and that he was entitled to a late appeal under the criteria set forth in Ortiz. The Supreme Court reviewed the facts underlying the district court's ruling for substantial competent evidence and the legal conclusion made by the district court on those facts as to whether the exception applies was reviewed de novo.The Supreme Court found that Bennett was properly informed of his rights and what he was waiving. The court noted that Bennett received the sentence contemplated in the plea agreement and filed no timely appeal. The court also found that Bennett had not explained why he should be allowed to appeal on any grounds two and a half years out of time. The court concluded that Bennett had not shown that he could qualify for a late appeal under the Ortiz criteria. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court, denying Bennett's motion for a late appeal. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Darrick S. Harris, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder and aggravated battery committed during a prison riot in 1993, petitioned the district court for forensic testing of objects used in the murder under K.S.A. 21-2512. Harris hoped to find unknown biological material on these objects that could be subject to DNA testing. However, the State claimed it no longer had possession of the items. The district court ruled Harris' motions moot as the items he sought to test were no longer in the State's possession. Harris then filed a motion requesting discharge from incarceration, alleging that the State's inability to comply with his request for DNA testing created an adverse inference that his DNA was not present, which should be deemed sufficient to constitute exoneration. The district court denied this motion, holding there was no evidence the State acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the evidence.Harris appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, arguing that the State's failure to retain physical evidence violated his due process rights. He also argued that the district court erred by not ordering the DNA testing of the biological material that was in the State's possession. The Supreme Court dismissed the second issue, stating that Harris had explicitly informed the court he was not seeking testing of the swabs.Regarding Harris' spoliation claim, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, but for different reasons. The court held that K.S.A. 21-2512 does not provide a vehicle for a claim on the facts presented by Harris. The court also noted that Harris' claim, even if construed as a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507, was procedurally barred by the one-year time limitation of K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-1507(f), and Harris had presented no argument for an exception. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Harris' motion. View "State v. Harris " on Justia Law

Cody Michael Lamia-Beck pleaded no contest to second-degree murder and was sentenced by the district court. However, the court later ruled that the sentence was illegal because it was generated from an incorrect sentencing grid and resentenced Lamia-Beck to a longer sentence. Lamia-Beck appealed, arguing that the original sentence was legal because it fell within the correct sentencing range, and therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose a new one.The district court had initially sentenced Lamia-Beck based on a sentencing range that corresponded with the drug offense grid rather than the nondrug offense grid. The State moved to correct the sentence, arguing that it was illegal because it was not the high number in the correct grid block. The district court agreed with the State and resentenced Lamia-Beck to a longer sentence. Lamia-Beck appealed this decision, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that under the Revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, a sentence is presumptively illegal if it is drawn from an incorrect sentencing grid block. The court found that the original sentence did not conform to the applicable statutory provision in character or punishment, making it illegal. The court rejected Lamia-Beck's argument that the sentence was legal because it fell within the correct sentencing range, stating that a sentence is more than a raw number; it is a number resulting from the exercise of the district court's discretion within the confines of a dictated range. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. Lamia-Beck" on Justia Law

The case involves David Moeller, who was convicted of securities fraud after deceiving an acquaintance into investing $9,500 in a non-existent business. Moeller appealed his conviction, but died during the appeal process. The Court of Appeals, applying the precedent set in State v. Hollister, ruled that Moeller's death did not render his appeal moot and affirmed his conviction and sentence. Moeller's defense counsel petitioned for review, arguing that the court should overrule Hollister and that the panel erred in concluding his conviction was supported by sufficient evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court. The court held that under the doctrine of stare decisis, it would continue to adhere to Hollister, which establishes that the death of a criminal defendant during the appeal of his or her conviction does not automatically abate the appeal but may render some issues moot. The court found that Hollister was not originally erroneous and that more good than harm would come from adhering to it. The court also held that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Moeller's conviction for securities fraud. The court concluded that Moeller's conduct constituted fraud or deceit and that the transaction between Moeller and the victim involved the sale of a security in the form of an investment contract. View "State v. Moeller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed a case involving the League of Women Voters of Kansas and other organizations against the Kansas Secretary of State and the Kansas Attorney General. The plaintiffs challenged three new Kansas election laws, alleging that they violated various provisions of the Kansas Constitution. The laws in question prohibited the false representation of an election official, prohibited election officials from counting advance ballots that did not have a signature or had a signature that an election official determined did not match the signature on file, and prohibited any person from collecting and returning more than 10 advance ballots for other voters.The case was initially heard in the Shawnee County District Court, which denied the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction against the false representation statute. The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims against the signature verification requirement and the ballot collection restriction. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions, and the cases were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Kansas held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their claim that the false representation statute was constitutionally infirm. Therefore, the district court erred in denying their request for a temporary injunction. The court also held that the signature verification requirement was a valid effort by the Legislature to provide "proper proofs" of the right to be a qualified elector. However, the court remanded the case to the district court to consider whether the statute and its implementing regulations complied with the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the claim that the ballot collection restriction was constitutionally infirm, because the restriction was not a new qualification on the right to be an elector, and because the proscribed activity—the delivery of ballots—was not political speech or expressive conduct. View "League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab" on Justia Law

The defendant, John R. Cantu, was charged with multiple counts including felony stalking, violation of protection from stalking orders, criminal damage to property, criminal trespass, and felony criminal threat. During his trial, Cantu testified on his own behalf as the sole defense witness. However, during cross-examination, the judge removed Cantu from the stand for being uncooperative and, at the prosecutor's request, struck his entire testimony from the record. Cantu was subsequently convicted on several counts and appealed, arguing that the district court's decision to strike his entire testimony from the record deprived him of his constitutional right to testify, which was structural error requiring automatic reversal.The Court of Appeals agreed that the district court erred in ordering Cantu's testimony stricken from the record and that this error denied Cantu the constitutional right to testify. However, the panel held that the error was not structural, but could be analyzed using the harmless error standard. The panel concluded that the error was harmless and affirmed the convictions.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas disagreed with the Court of Appeals' conclusion. The Supreme Court held that the complete and improper denial of a criminal defendant's constitutional right to testify is structural error. The court reasoned that the right to testify is a fundamental right grounded in multiple provisions of the United States Constitution. The court further explained that structural errors are defects affecting the fundamental fairness of the trial's mechanism, preventing the trial court from serving its basic function of determining guilt or innocence and depriving defendants of basic due process protections required in criminal proceedings. The court concluded that the complete and wrongful denial of a defendant's constitutional right to testify by improperly removing a defendant from the stand and striking the defendant's entire testimony is structural error because it renders the criminal trial fundamentally unfair, regardless of whether the outcome of the trial would have been different had the defendant been permitted to testify and his or her testimony been left intact. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed Cantu's convictions and remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Cantu" on Justia Law

The case involves a juvenile, J.L.J., who was charged with first-degree felony murder and several other offenses after he opened fire on a car, killing a 12-year-old boy. J.L.J. was certified for adult prosecution and testified that he was acting in self-defense. The jury rejected his self-defense claim and convicted him on all charges.The case was previously heard in the Leavenworth District Court where J.L.J. was convicted. On appeal, J.L.J. raised several claims of error, including prosecutorial errors and the argument that the State unconstitutionally pitted his right to prepare for his defense against his right to testify at trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that while the prosecutor erred by asking potential jurors if they would do their "job" and convict J.L.J., this error was harmless and did not affect the jury's verdict. The court also disagreed with J.L.J.'s argument that the prosecutor misstated the law on self-defense during closing argument. Furthermore, the court found that the State's impeachment of J.L.J. did not violate the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. Lastly, the court declined to invoke an exception to the general preservation rule to address J.L.J.'s argument that the adult certification process violates his constitutional rights. View "State v. J.L.J." on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of a purebred show dog named Oscar. The parties involved are Oscar's breeder, Elizabeth "Betsy" Shauck, and Dave Jennings and Emily McLeod, who have raised Oscar since he was a puppy. Dave and Emily filed a petition to quiet title to Oscar against Betsy, who counterclaimed for breach of contract, replevin, conversion, for a restraining order and preliminary injunction, and to quiet title. Betsy's preliminary injunction counterclaim asked the district court to prevent Dave and Emily from harboring Oscar and to order his immediate return to her.The district court held a three-day hearing, which was supposed to be on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction. However, the court expanded the scope of the hearing and made findings of fact and conclusions of law on the merits of all issues pending in the underlying lawsuit, including Oscar's ownership, contract disputes, and damages. Dave and Emily appealed this decision, arguing that the district court denied their due process rights by deciding the case on the merits when it had only set the hearing on Betsy's preliminary injunction.The Kansas Court of Appeals panel held that the district court violated Dave and Emily's due process rights by expanding the scope of the hearing without notice. However, instead of remanding the case, the panel analyzed the parties' ownership interests in Oscar and held that Dave and Betsy co-owned Oscar. Betsy then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas for review.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the panel. The court agreed with the panel that the district court erred by expanding the scope of the hearing on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the district court's decision to consolidate the hearing on Betsy's request for a preliminary injunction with a trial on the case's merits without informing the parties was a denial of due process and an error of law. The court also agreed with the panel's conclusion that the district court's failure prejudiced Dave and Emily. However, the court held that the panel erred by addressing the case's merits after correctly concluding that the district court erred. The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Jennings v. Shauck" on Justia Law