Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in declining to inquire into his pretrial motion for substitute counsel. The Supreme Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the issue. On remand, the district court rejected Defendant’s arguments, concluding that Defendant had not established a conflict or justifiable dissatisfaction with his attorney. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Defendant did not carry his burden to show justifiable dissatisfaction with his trial attorney. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of one count of abuse of a child and two counts of aggravated battery. The district court later revoked Appellant’s probation and imposed the underlying consecutive sentences for his convictions. Appellant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the prison sentences were illegal because they violated the double base-sentence rule in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4720(b)(4). The Court of Appeals that the district court had imposed an illegal sentence, concluding that the trial judge should have sentenced Appellant to a maximum of sixty-eight months’ imprisonment, rather than a total of 102 months in prison, which was three times the base sentence of his primary crime. Appellant petitioned for review and filed a motion to remand, arguing that he was entitled to an immediate resentencing because he had served the maximum legal total sentence that could be imposed in this case. Here, the Supreme Court determined that the petition for review was improvidently granted and explained this decision in more than just a few words, as the circumstances of this case warranted instruction about procedures on remand and the effect of this decision. View "State v. Eisenhour" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of identity theft and felony theft. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the district court judge erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a law enforcement car stop. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that a suspicious character tip such as that motivating the car stop at issue was not enough to support reasonable suspicion of a crime, but reasonable suspicion nonetheless existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to support the stop of the car Defendant was driving, and therefore, Defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred by not granting his motion to suppress evidence of his blood alcohol content obtained from a breath test. Specifically, Defendant alleged that he had been unconstitutionally coerced into submitting to the test because officers threatened to obtain a warrant for a blood test when the officers could have lawfully obtained the warrant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Kansas law permits law enforcement officers to to obtain a warrant for a blood draw after a breath test refusal, and therefore, the threat to do so was not coercive. View "City of Dodge City v. Webb" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, aggravated burglary, and attempted rape. The district court imposed the death sentence for the capital murder conviction and time in prison for the remaining convictions. The Supreme Court remanded after finding reversible error relating to Defendant’s capital sentence. After a new sentencing proceeding, the district court imposed the death sentence for the capital murder conviction and prison sentences for the remaining convictions. Defendant appealed, raising several allegations of error. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s capital murder conviction and his death sentence but reversed Defendant’s attempted rape conviction as multiplicitous, vacated his sentence for attempted rape, and remanded for resentencing on the other conviction of aggravated burglary, holding that an intervening change in the law required reversal of Defendant’s attempted rape conviction. View "State v. Kleypas" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of capital murder by intentionally killing the victim during the commission of, or subsequent to, the crime of attempted rape, attempted rape, and aggravated arson. The district court imposed a sentenced of death for the murder conviction. During the pendency of this appeal, Defendant died in prison. The Supreme Court decided that only three issues should be addressed on appeal that could posthumously exonerate Defendant on one or more of his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence in the record was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions for capital murder and aggravated arson; but (2) Defendant’s attempted rape conviction was multiplicitous with his conviction for capital murder. View "State v. Belt" on Justia Law

After Defendant was convicted of felony theft, a district court hearing was held to pronounce sentence on Defendant and to consider the State’s motions to revoke Defendant’s probation in four earlier cases based on his new conviction. That hearing resulted in several appellate court opinions, this decision being the fourth of them. At the hearing, Defendant was sentenced for his felony conviction, and Defendant’s probation in the prior cases was revoked. All of the sentences pronounced during the hearing were based on Defendant’s criminal history score as reflected on presentence investigation reports. Defendant appealed from the revocation of his probation in three cases, arguing that the district court imposed illegal underlying sentences premised on an erroneous criminal history score resulting from a misclassification of a prior conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated Defendant’s sentences, holding that the prior conviction at issue was misclassified as a person felony, and therefore, the resulting sentences were illegal. View "State v. Dickey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder. Defendant appealed, raising several claims of error, including claims of prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that a single error on the part of the prosecutor did not affect the outcome of the trial, and Defendant’s remaining prosecutorial misconduct claims were without merit; (2) Defendant did not meet the clear error standard for reversal based on the district judge’s early mistake in making statements to potential jurors before voir dire; (3) the district judge erred in omitting an instruction on reckless second-degree murder, but the jury would not have reached a different verdict had the instruction been given; and (4) cumulative error did not necessitate reversal. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and other crimes related to the murder of a Topeka attorney. The district judge sentenced Defendant to life in prison for the felony murder count plus 114 months on the remaining counts. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that a statement made by the prosecutor during closing argument amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; and (2) there was no prosecutorial misconduct in this case. View "State v. Netherland" on Justia Law

During a fight, Defendant killed a pregnant bystander and repeatedly shot one man, resulting in the man’s paralysis. A jury convicted Defendant of one count of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. The murder charges were based on Alexa’s law, which defines murder to include the killing of an “unborn child.” To prove the intent requirement of the first-degree premeditated murder counts, the State relied on the transferred intent doctrine, arguing that Defendant premeditated the murder of those with whom he had been fighting and his guilt was the same as it would have been had he hit his intended targets. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the intent element of both first-degree premeditated murder counts, and the district court did not err in providing the jury with instructions on transferred intent; (2) the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on reckless second-degree murder and reckless involuntary manslaughter was harmless; (3) the remainder of Defendant’s challenges to the instructions given in this case did not warrant a new trial; and (4) the cumulative impact of conceded and assumed instructional errors in this case did not require the reversal of Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Seba" on Justia Law