Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff’s probationary employment was terminated by Kansas State University. Plaintiff sued the University, arguing that her employment termination was in retaliation for her potential claims under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. The district court granted the University’s motion to dismiss, determining that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies because Plaintiff was required under the Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA) to first present her retaliatory discharge claim to the University for determination. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Plaintiff’s claims were not governed by the KJRA and, therefore, jurisdiction was proper in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s tort claim was not governed by the KJRA. Remanded. View "Platt v. Kansas State Univ." on Justia Law

Bromley Quarry operated an underground limestone mine adjacent to Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs sued Bromley Quarry, claiming trespass and conversion of 855,500 tons of limestone. Bromely Quarry admitted that it had trespassed onto the Armstrong property and removed 173,392 tons of rock during the limitations period generally applicable to trespass and conversion claims but denied liability for the remainder (the “disputed rock”). The district court granted summary judgment to Bromley Quarry on Plaintiffs’ claim relating to the disputed rock, and, following a trial, awarded Plaintiffs damages for the 173,392 tons of limestone that the court found was converted during the limitations period. To compute the award for the rock, the district court found Bromely Quarry was a good-faith trespasser. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, concluding that Bromley Quarry was not a good-faith trespasser, and otherwise affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the lower courts erred by relying on an incomplete record to determine when the statute of limitations began running on Plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) Bromley Quarry did not prove it was a good-faith trespasser and therefore was liable for $1,733,920 as the enhanced value of the 173,392 tons of limestone. View "Armstrong v. Bromley Quarry & Asphalt, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case both Defendant and the State urged the Supreme Court to reconsider and alter the legal tests it has applied to claims of prosecutorial misconduct since State v. Tosh. The Supreme Court overruled Tosh and adopted a modified approach that applies to what have historically been known as prosecutorial misconduct claims. Here a jury convicted Defendant of first-degree felony murder and aggravated battery. Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his trial. The Supreme Court overruled the particularized harmlessness inquiry in the context of prosecutorial misconduct claims commanded by Tosh and adopted a simpler second step in the two-step analysis. Specifically, inside the confines of a criminal appeal, the Court will henceforth review prosecutorial behavior for “prosecutorial error.” The two steps in the analysis can now be described as error and prejudice. Further, and reversal of a conviction is not an appropriate sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. Applying the new two-step analysis to Defendant’s claim, the Supreme Court held that no reversible error occurred in Defendant’s case. View "State v. Sherman" on Justia Law

After a seven-day jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first-degree felony murder and aggravated burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support Defendant’s first-degree felony-murder and aggravated burglary convictions; and (2) the State did not violate Defendant’s due process rights by presenting two theories of first-degree murder - premeditated first-degree murder and felony murder - because the two theories are not inherently contradictory but, rather, separate theories of first-degree murder. View "State v. Thach" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for the strangulation death of his former girlfriend. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior incidences of domestic battery and in instructing the jury and that the cumulative effect of the trial errors deprived him of a fair trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court’s evidentiary rulings either were not in error or Defendant failed to preserve his allegations of error for appellate review; and (2) to the extent that instruction errors occurred, they did not prejudice Defendant or deprive him of a fair trial. View "State v. Solis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape and unlawful hosting of minors consuming alcohol. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding (1) the district court did not violate Defendant’s right to a fair trial by admitting evidence concerning the condition of a teenage girl who was not the victim of the charged rape; and (2) the district judge applied the wrong legal standard when he made the statement that an aggravating factor “trumped” mitigators advanced by Defendant. Remanded for resentencing on both of Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. McCormick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated intimidation of a witness in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5909 for allegedly attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying in a homicide proceeding. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned for review, arguing (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, and (2) section 21-5909 is unconstitutionally vague or, alternatively, the jury was incorrectly instructed on the definitions in the statute. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction and vacated her sentence, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant dissuaded the witness from providing testimony. View "State v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence as a three-time offender, refusing a preliminary breath test, and transporting an open container. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained when police officers entered his home without a search warrant. The district court judge denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, although its reasoning differed from that of the district judge and the Court of Appeals, holding (1) the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant for driving under the influence before they entered his home; and (2) even if there was error, the error was not reversible. View "State v. Keenan" on Justia Law

After a bench trial on stipulations, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, three counts of aggravated battery, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and battery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court obtained a knowing and voluntary jury trial waiver from Defendant and did not err in allowing Defendant’s case to proceed under the stipulated facts agreement; and (2) this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a departure sentence. View "State v. Rizo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 154 months and ordered to pay $27,000 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred by failing to explicitly instruct the jury on the burden of proof for self-defense, but the error was not clear error; (2) certain comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments did not rise to the level of reversible misconduct; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s request for new counsel; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors in this trial was not so great as to require a new trial. View "State v. Staten" on Justia Law