Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Anson Bernhardt appealed his conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. Bernhardt raised three issues on appeal, arguing the district judge erred by: (1) adding language to a pattern jury instruction defining premeditation; (2) giving two separate jury instructions on intentional second-degree murder and reckless second-degree murder instead of a single instruction covering both theories; and (3) failing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter. He also claimed the cumulative effect of these errors deprived him a fair trial. Defendant further contended the district judge erred by applying the 2013 amendments to Kansas' hard 50 sentencing scheme retroactively, and he challenged the aggravating circumstances ultimately relied upon to support imposition of his hard 50 sentence. After review, the Kansas Supreme Court held there was no error and affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "Kansas v. Bernhardt" on Justia Law

Ebony Nguyen appealed the district court's denial of her motion for a downward durational departure of her life sentence for felony murder. Nguyen unwittingly received counterfeit money from Jordan Turner in exchange for her marijuana. Upon discovering the deception and with the assistance of three others, Nguyen retaliated by luring Turner to a secluded location where he was shot and killed. With kidnapping serving as the underlying felony, Nguyen pled no contest to one count of felony murder. The Kansas Supreme Court found that because the district court had no discretion to depart, it rejected Nguyen's arguments and affirmed. View "Kansas v. Nguyen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant later filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence based on Alleyne v. United States and State v. Soto. The district court granted Defendant’s motion, concluding that the sentencing procedure violated Alleyne. The court then sentenced Defendant to a life term without eligibility for parole for a minimum of forty years. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the decisions in Alleyne and Soto do not render judgments illegal that were final before those decisions were issued. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Defendants. The district judge issued a memorandum decision addressing various motions for partial and full summary judgment. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking the district judge’s certification of the memorandum decision as a final judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-254(b). The district judge granted the request in a journal entry, determining that “there is no just reason for delay.” Within thirty days of the filing of the court’s journal entry, Plaintiffs then filed their notice of appeal of the adverse rulings. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, ruling that Prime Lending II v. Trolley’s Real Estate Holdings controlled and that the district court had no discretion to retroactively certify the judgment as immediately appealable. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ order dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal, holding (1) a certification of “no just reason for delay” may be made after summary judgment is granted to fewer than all parties or on fewer than all claims; (2) the filing date of the district court order or journal entry memorializing that certification starts the thirty-day appeal clock; and (3) the district judge’s certification of his original decision as an appealable judgment was successful in this case. View "Ullery v. Othick" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated endangering a child, and aggravated assault. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State’s failure to charge Defendant specifically with “aiding and abetting” aggravated assault and aggravated child endangerment offenses and the State’s oral amendment to the felony-murder charge did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction; (2) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s felony-murder conviction; (3) the jury instructions did not require reversal; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the case detective to sit at or near the prosecution’s table during trial and its decision to exempt the case detective from a sequestration order did not prejudice Defendant; and (5) the cumulative error doctrine did not require reversal of Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Dupree" on Justia Law

Helen Keiswetter died from her injuries after a minimum-security inmate escaped from the State’s custody, entered her home, and forced her into a closet, where the inmate kicked her, causing her to fall and hit her head. Helen’s son, Ron Keiswetter, sued the State for her personal injuries and wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the State, finding that the public duty doctrine precluded Keiswetter’s claim and that the State was immune from liability under the police protection exception of the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State demonstrated that it was entitled to immunity from liability under the police protection exception of the KTCA. View "Keiswetter v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession with marijuana with the intent to distribute. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence resulting from a search of a house where he was staying. The search was conducted pursuant to an anticipatory search warrant which purported to give law enforcement authority to search the house once a suspicious package was successfully delivered to a resident of the house. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the district court did not err in finding that the search warrant was supported by probable cause and that Defendant’s retrieval of the package from the front porch while under police surveillance was sufficient to trigger execution of the search warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was a substantial basis for the district court judge’s determination that probable cause supported a search warrant of the home; (2) the event triggering execution of the search warrant - a controlled delivery of the package to a resident of the home - occurred in this case; and (3) the police acted appropriately when they entered the house pursuant to the search warrant. View "State v. Mullen" on Justia Law

In 2003, Plaintiff pled guilty to one count of indecent liberties with a minor. Plaintiff successfully completed his probation in 2006. At the time of his conviction, the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) required Plaintiff to register for a period of ten years from the date of his conviction. Before Plaintiff was scheduled to complete his reporting requirements, Plaintiff was notified that his period of registration had been extended from ten years to twenty-five years under the amendments to KORA that were to become effective in 2011. Plaintiff filed a petition for declaratory judgment seeking a judicial determination that the retroactive application of the 2011 KORA amendments violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the KORA amendments could not be retroactively applied to Plaintiff without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "Doe v. Thompson" on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant pled no contest to one count of indecent solicitation of a child fourteen to fifteen years old. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, but the district court suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on probation. The district court also ordered Appellant to register as a sex offender. Under the 2001 version of the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) Appellant’s registration term would have expired after ten years. Under the 2011 KORA amendments, Appellant’s crime of conviction required registration for twenty-five years. In 2012, the State charged Appellant with three counts of violating KORA for failing to report in person on three dates outside the original ten-year registration period. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the charges against him violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. The district court granted Appellant’s motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s ten-year registration period could not be retroactively increased to twenty-five years and that, without a statutory duty to report, Appellant could not be prosecuted for failing to report. View "State v. Redmond" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with various firearm and drug-related crimes. Defendant filed numerous motions to suppress the evidence obtained during a search of a residence and a vehicle parked in the driveway. The district court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle on the grounds that it was not within the scope of the search warrant. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the search warrant for the “premises” authorized the search of vehicles within the curtilage of the home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the vehicle was authorized by the warrant, and therefore, the incriminating evidence located in the vehicle was lawfully discovered. View "State v. Patterson" on Justia Law