Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in excluding the proffered testimony of a witness as to the victim’s prior specific bad acts of violence; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on an alleged Brady violation; (3) even if the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, the error was harmless; and (4) the State did not commit prosecutorial misconduct. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

While Defendant was serving a nonprison sentence of probation with community corrections supervision in three cases, the State filed a motion to revoke Defendant’s probation. After a hearing, the district court stated that it would reinstate Defendant on probation with a ninety-day sanction. The court, however, reopened the completed probation revocation hearing based upon Defendant’s subsequent contemptuous act, found Defendant in direct contempt of court, and ordered Defendant to serve his original sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s revocation of Defendant’s probation was based on a ground for which Defendant was not provided sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard in violation of Defendant’s due process rights. Remanded for a new probation revocation hearing. View "State v. Hurley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff retained Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, to represent him in a probation revocation proceeding. The district court eventually accepted Plaintiff’s stipulation to violating probation, revoked his probation, and ordered him to serve his originally imposed prison term. An error in the journal entry of sentencing, however, led to Plaintiff serving more time in prison than his original sentence. Plaintiff filed a petition for legal malpractice against Defendant. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment, but the district court set aside the default judgment and dismissed the lawsuit because Plaintiff had not established his innocence under the exoneration rule. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court erred in setting aside the default judgment for excusable neglect. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-260(b)(6) ; but (2) erred in dismissing the lawsuit based on the Court’s holding in Mashaney v. Board of Indigents’ Defense Services with respect to the exoneration rule and the running of the statute of limitations. View "Garcia v. Ball" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of abuse of a child, aggravated indecent liberties with a child, aiding and abetting aggravated indecent liberties with a child, and promoting obscenity to a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting Defendant’s female cousin’s testimony about past sexual abuse as propensity evidence; (2) the State presented sufficient evidence at trial as to each element of the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child; and (3) the district court erred in finding a witness was unavailable to testify at trial and admitting her preliminary hearing testimony, but the error was harmless. View "State v. Page" on Justia Law

Larry Solomon was the chief judge of the Thirtieth Judicial District of Kansas. Judge Solomon was appointed to serve as judge judge in 1991 and has been reappointed continuously through the present. Under Kan. Stat. Ann. 20-329, as amended by section 11 of H.B. 2338, Judge Solomon’s current term will end on January 1, 2016, and under Supreme Court Rule 107(a) his current term will end on December 31, 2015. On February 18, 2015, Judge Solomon filed a petition seeking a declaration that section 11 of H.B. 2338 is an unconstitutional encroachment on the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court to administer the judiciary of the state and that if section 11 were declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill could not be saved. The district court granted Judge Solomon’s motion for summary judgment and struck all of H.B. 2338 because of a nonseverability clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 11 of H.B. 2338 is unconstitutional, and Rule 107 remains in full effect. View "Solomon v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant’s lawyer subsequently filed a motion for new trial and a motion for judgment of acquittal, which the trial judge denied. Defendant also filed a pro se motion, which the district judge construed as a motion for new trial. In his motion, Defendant argued, in relevant part, that his lawyer had failed to put on evidence in Defendant’s defense. Characterizing Defendant’s arguments as allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the district judge concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the court of appeals said that Defendant could challenge his trial counsel’s effectiveness through a later motion under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. Defendant subsequently filed a section 60-1507 motion, arguing that his trial counsel had been ineffective in several respects. After an evidentiary hearing, the district judge denied Defendant relief. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) conflict existed between Defendant and his lawyer at the hearing on the motion for new trial; and (2) Defendant’s remaining allegations were without merit. View "Fuller v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of domestic battery, which was treated as a person felony based on Defendant’s criminal history. The district court imposed the minimum ninety-day confinement required by statute, followed by twenty-four months of probation. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that a district court may impose up to sixty months of probation on persons convicted of felony domestic battery in accordance with Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6608(c)(6). Defendant appealed, arguing that he could only be sentenced to twelve months of probation pursuant to the statute. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in the absence of a statutory limit, the duration of the probation term for felony domestic battery is a probation condition within the district court’s discretion; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Defendant to serve twenty-four months of probation. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

In 2000, at the age of eighteen, Defendant was convicted as an adult of murder. In 2012, Defendant filed a second petition for collateral relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process because he was convicted while mentally incompetent. Although Defendant’s motion was entitled “Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence,” the district court deemed the motion a collateral challenge under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and assigned it both a civil case number and a criminal case number. In the civil case, the court summarily denied the motion, determining that the pleading was both untimely and successive. In the criminal case, the court dismissed the motion, concluding that it was without merit. Defendant filed two notices of appeal, one to the Court of Appeals from the civil decision and one to the Supreme Court from the criminal caption. The Court of Appeals affirmed. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that his conviction amounted to a denial of due process because, at the time of trial, he was a juvenile who suffered from a mental defect that rendered him incompetent. The Supreme Court also affirmed, holding that because Defendant's claim was procedural, not jurisdictional, Defendant could not prevail in his claim that his sentence was illegal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder. The district court imposed the mandated sentence of lifetime imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding (1) the district court did not err when it failed to order sua sponte a competency evaluation; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to inquire further into Defendant’s reasons for filing motions requesting the appointment of new counsel; and (3) Defendant’s claim that the district court judge allegedly misspoke during his reading of the instructions to the jury was without merit. View "State v. Marshall" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard fifty sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the sentencing scheme under which Defendant was sentenced has been declared to be unconstitutional, and therefore, Defendant must be resentenced; (2) this was not a multiple acts case requiring a unanimity instruction; (3) the district court properly denied Defendant’s motion arguing ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) the prosecutor’s statements during closing argument were in error, but the error was harmless; (5) Defendant was not convicted in violation of the corpus delicti rule; (6) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (7) the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a search of Defendant’s outbuilding; and (8) Defendant was not denied a fair trial due to cumulative error. View "State v. Sprague" on Justia Law