Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary and felony criminal damage to property. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for twenty-six months. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court of Appeals erred to prevent Defendant from challenging the jury instruction on the elements of burglary; (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury instruction on the elements of burglary, assuming it presented alternative means; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion permitting opinion testimony about the cost to repair a motorcycle. View "State v. Sasser" on Justia Law

Adam Pener was the trustee and personal representative of a trust and estate that owned property condemned by the Kansas Department of Transportation for a highway improvement project. The district court found the damages from the taking were $295,702. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the district court gave insufficient weight to the replacement value for a fence and to a comparable sale when it calculated the property’s value, and (2) the district court should have awarded him attorney fees and expenses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the compensation award was supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the district court did not err in denying attorney fees and expenses. View "Pener v. King" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and related charges. The court sentenced Defendant to a controlling prison term of 774 months. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s petition for review in part and affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the sentence, holding (1) the information charging Defendant with aggravated kidnapping was not so defective as to warrant reversal; and (2) two prior Colorado misdemeanor convictions were improperly classified and aggregated with another misdemeanor conviction to be scored as a person felony for criminal history purposes. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

In 2010, The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) issued a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) construction permit to Sunflower Electric Power Corporation that authorized Sunflower to build a coal-fired electric generating unit at a site where Sunflower already operates a coal-fired station. In Sierra Club I, the Supreme Court held that KDHE had failed to comply with the federal Clean Air Act and remanded the permit to KDHE. On remand, KDHE issued an addendum to the 2010 permit. Sierra Club sought judicial review of that action, arguing, inter alia, that KDHE was required to conduct an entirely new permitting process rather than simply crafting an addendum to the 2010 permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) KDHE did not err in adding an addendum to the 2010 permit; and (2) Sierra Club failed to establish any other basis for invalidating Sunflower’s PSD permit. View "Sierra Club v. Mosier" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and unlawful exhibition of speed. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his driving under the influence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1565, which prohibits an unlawful “exhibition of speed or acceleration,” was unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, and the good faith exception was inapplicable; and (2) alternatively, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals’ decision that the district court erroneously denied the motion to suppress on the grounds that reasonable suspicion did not exist to conduct the traffic stop; (2) summarily vacated the court of appeals’ determination that section 8-1565 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant; and (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions and vacated his sentences and fines. View "State v. Sharp" on Justia Law

The Wabaunsee Board of County Commissioners appointed Robert Miller to serve a four-year term as Wabaunsee County Appraiser. Nearly two years into Miller’s appointment, the Board voted to terminate Miller and stop paying his salary and benefits. Miller exercised his statutory right under Kan. Stat. Ann. 19-431 to have his termination reviewed in an administrative hearing. An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially ordered the Board to reinstate Miller, but the district court vacated the decision. On remand, the ALJ gave deference to the Board’s decision and upheld Miller’s termination. Miller appealed, arguing that his termination was not in accordance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 19-431 because the Board did not have the authority to terminate a county appraiser. The district court affirmed the termination. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 19-431 did not grant the Board the final authority to terminate Miller’s employment and thereby end his salary and benefits. Remanded with an order to determine the amount of back pay owed to Miller. View "Miller v. Board of Wabaunsee County Commissioners" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated battery. After a preliminary hearing, Defendant moved for a grant of immunity pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231. After weighing the evidence, the district court granted Defendant immunity and dismissed the charges. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, concluding that the district court was required to view the evidence in a light favoring the State and, under the correct standard, there was probable cause to rebut Defendant’s claim of immunity and submit the case to a jury. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the district court, holding (1) because the Court announced a new rule of law enunciated herein, the Court of Appeals must be reversed; and (2) the district court correctly granted Defendant statutory immunity pursuant to section 21-5231. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a hard fifty sentence for first-degree murder under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635 without fact-finding by the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his hard fifty sentence, holding that Defendant was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the district court, rather than the jury, found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Alleyne v. United States. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Mattox" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated battery. Defendant moved for a grant of immunity pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231(a) - the self-defense immunity statute - and asked for a probable cause hearing. The district court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the case against Defendant, concluding that he was immune from prosecution under section 21-5231 because, while he used “deadly force,” the presumption of reasonableness applied and the State failed meet its burden to demonstrate probable cause that Defendant’s use of force was not justified. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s grant of immunity, holding (1) the court of appeals erred by concluding that district courts must resolve evidentiary disputes in favor of the State when ruling on a defendant’s motion for immunity; and (2) the district court’s determination that Defendant was entitled to statutory immunity was both supported by substantial competent evidence and correct as a matter of law. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, raising three arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with regarding to Defendant’s first and third issues, the court of appeals reached the correct conclusions; and (2) Defendant’s argument that his firearm should have been suppressed as evidence because it was obtained through an illegal search of his car was without merit because the search of Defendant’s car was legal under the exigent circumstances plus probable clause exception to the search warrant requirement. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law