Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred by denying his efforts to obtain a venue due to pretrial publicity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the pretrial publicity did not create an atmosphere in Barton County that jeopardized Defendant’s right to a fair trial; and (2) there was not a reasonable probability that the prosecutor’s question about a certain text message affected the trial’s outcome, and therefore the trial court did not commit prejudicial error by permitting the State to cross-examine Defendant about the text message. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The sentencing judge did not specifically state that Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on Count II, but the journal entry reflected a life sentence on each count. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion arguing that he was actually sentenced to only one life sentence regardless of what the journal entry showed. The district court denied relief. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, concluding that Appellant’s sentence for the second murder count was ambiguous, rendering it illegal. On remand, a different district court judge resentenced Appellant to life imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Appellant appealed, arguing that the life sentence for count II cannot be run consecutive to Count I. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s argument failed for lack of pertinent authority or an argument showing why his position is sound despite the lack of supporting authority. View "State v. Angelo" on Justia Law

This case arose from a mortgage foreclosure petition filed by FV-I, Inc. The dispute in this case was between FV-I and Bank of the Prairie (BOP), a bank with junior mortgages on the same property. The parties agreed to sell the property and place the proceeds in escrow pending resolution of this case. Summary judgment was initially granted in favor of BOP. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a trial to determine whether FV-I had possession of the promissory note underlying the mortgage at the time it filed the mortgage foreclosure. After a trial, the district court concluded that FV-I lacked standing to file the petition because it did not have possession of the original note prior to filing its petition and that BOP’s mortgages were superior to FV-I’s mortgage. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidentiary rulings excluding endorsements on the promissory note require a remand for a rehearing regarding standing and the panel’s priority determination. Remanded. View "FV-I, Inc. v. Kallevig" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of distribution of methamphetamine. Defendant appealed, arguing that an audio recording of a nontestifying informant’s statements were improperly admitted into evidence because the informant’s statements were testimonial and thus violated Defendant’s right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment and Crawford v. Washington. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that, under the circumstances, the informant’s statements were not testimonial in nature. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the informant’s statements qualified as testimonial, but the error in admitting the informant’s testimonial evidence was harmless. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of one count of first-degree murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder. The crimes were committed in October 1994. In June 1995, the district court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life imprisonment for first-degree murder and a consecutive 134 months’ imprisonment for attempted first-degree murder. Approximately twenty years later, Defendant filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence. The district court denied the motions. Defendant filed a pro se motion for reconsideration arguing that his sentence was illegal because the hard twenty-five sentence authorized by statute did not come into effect until July 1995. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hard twenty-five sentencing statute applies to certain crimes committed on or after July 1, 1994 and therefore applied to the crimes Defendant committed in October 1994. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

In 1988, Appellant pled guilty to three counts of forgery. Later that year, Appellant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and other crimes. Appellant was sentenced to three life sentences for first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2014, Appellant filed a pro se motion entitled “motion to set aside a void judgment” that included eight arguments for why his convictions should not have been sustained. The district court summarily denied Appellant’s motion because it was untimely filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that Appellant’s claims were not properly raised through a motion to correct an illegal sentence. View "State v. Cotton" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of, among other crimes, battery against a law enforcement officer. The conviction arose from Defendant's act of spitting on Brian Johnson, a detective for the Riley County Police Department. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for felony battery against a law enforcement officer as charged under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5413(c)(3)(D), concluding that the State failed to prove that Johnson was a correctional officer or employee. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and vacated the felony conviction and sentence for battery against a law enforcement officer, holding that because Johnson was not a correctional employee at the time of the spitting incident, Defendant was convicted of a crime for which the State failed to charge or prove all of the elements. View "State v. Toliver" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the firefighter’s rule should be extended to law enforcement officers. Officer Juan Apodaca and Officer Jonathan Dulaney suffered serious injuries after attempting to help Matthew Willmore, who had fallen asleep at the wheel. The officers filed a petition alleging that Willmore’s negligence caused them to suffer personal injuries and related damages. They also asserted a claim of negligent entrustment against Willmore’s father. The Willmores filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the firefighter’s rule barred the officer’s claims. Thereafter, Officer Dulaney dismissed his claims against the Willmores. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Willmores, concluding (1) the firefighter’s rule “should be and is extended to law enforcement officers”; and (2) the firefighter’s rule barred Officer Apodaca from recovering in this action because he was acting within the scope of his duties as a law enforcement officer at the time of the accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the firefighter’s rule, first enunciated in Calvert v. Garvey Elevators, Inc., is extended to law enforcement officers; and (2) the district judge correctly granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims because of application of the firefighter’s rule. View "Apodaca v. Willmore" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant later filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that the district court judge lacked jurisdiction to impose multiple, consecutive convictions and sentences for felony murder and aggravated kidnapping. The district court judge summarily denied the motion. Defendant appealed, arguing that the judge made insufficient findings of fact to allow for meaningful review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court adequately addressed Defendant’s challenge and reached the correct conclusion. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and terroristic threat. The jury unanimously determined that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for forty years should be imposed for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence. Defendant later filed a second amended motion to correct illegal sentence, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the instructions that had been provided to the jury did not clearly specify the standard of proof for finding mitigating circumstances. The district court denied the motion, concluding that even if there were error, it was harmless. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s sentence was not illegal. View "State v. Allison" on Justia Law