Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, unintentional second-degree murder, and reckless involuntary manslaughter; (2) the district court did not err by excluding evidence that the shooting happened in a high crime area; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a trial continuance; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

State v. Ortiz created judicial exceptions to the general rule barring untimely appeals. In the instant case, Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and other crimes. The district court sentenced Appellant to life sentences for the murder and aggravated kidnapping convictions. Appellant asserted that he told his appointed counsel (Attorney) after sentencing that he wanted to file an appeal. Attorney filed a motion to modify Appellant's sentence but never filed a direct appeal of Appellant’s sentence. The motion to modify was overruled. Nearly two decades later, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, a motion for an out-of-time appeal, and a motion for appointed counsel. The district court denied the motion, finding that the passage of time was a bar to Appellant’s appeal. Appellant appealed, arguing that he should be allowed to bring his direct appeal out of time, pursuant to Ortiz, because Attorney did not file an appeal despite Appellant’s direction to do so. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the case was presented to the Court without adequate factual findings. Remanded to the district court to make the requisite findings. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

On February 5, 2016, Governor Sam Brownback received statutorily required notice of District Magistrate Judge Tommy Webb’s departure from the bench. On June 15, 2016, three judges filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a writ requiring the governor to immediately appoint an interim district magistrate judge for Haskall County. Specifically, Petitioner alleged that the governor failed to appoint a successor district magistrate judge in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 25-312a, which states that any “appointment made by the governor…shall be made within 90 days following receipt of notice….” The Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, holding that the ninety-day time limit for the governor’s appointment of a district magistrate judge is directory rather than mandatory under precedent and is thus a discretionary act not subject to mandamus. View "Ambrosier v. Brownback" on Justia Law