Justia Kansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal threat. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in instructing the jury on criminal threat by including two intended victims of Defendant’s threat, as naming two victims of a criminal threat does not state alternative means; and (2) the district court instructed the jury on alternative means to commit criminal threat based on two different mental states, and the State had the burden of providing sufficient evidence of both means, but sufficient evidence supported each of the alternative means instructed. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

In Gannon I, the Supreme Court confirmed that Article 6 of the Kansas Constitution, which imposes a duty on the legislature to “make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state,” contains both equity and adequacy requirements. On remand, a three-judge district court panel made various rulings. At issue on appeal was the panel’s holding that the State failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s Gannon I directive on equity due to the 2015 legislature amending capital outlay state aid and supplemental general state aid formulas for fiscal year 2015 and repealing the amended aid formulas for fiscal years 2016 and 2017. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the panel unnecessarily ordered State officials to be joined as parties; (2) the panel had the authority to review the law changing the entitlements for fiscal years 2016 and 2017; (3) the panel properly concluded that the State failed to cure the inquiries affirmed to exist in Gannon I; (4) Plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees; and (5) the panel’s remedy was premature. View "Gannon v. State" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to felony murder and aggravated robbery. More than seven years later, Defendant appealed his sentence and filed a motion to withdraw his pleas. The district court rejected Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea on the merits and ruled that Defendant failed to demonstrate the excusable neglect required to permit his untimely motion. The district court also rejected Defendant’s big to appeal out of time, concluding that it was untimely and not otherwise subject to exceptions from the statutory time limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the appeal as untimely or in denying Defendant’s untimely motion to withdraw plea. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a City of Wichita ordinance that reduces the severity level of a first-offense conviction for possession of marijuana under certain circumstances. Relying upon the Kansas initiative and referendum statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-3013, the city council submitted a general description of the proposed ordinance as a ballot question. City electors approved the ordinance in the April 2015 general election. The State subsequently filed this petition in quo warranto asking the Supreme Court to declare the ordinance null and void. The State also asked the Court to permanently prohibit the City from publishing, implementing and enforcing the ordinance, arguing, inter alia, that it was not adopted with the procedures set forth in section 12-3013(a). The Supreme Court agreed and granted the State’s request for a writ in quo warranto, holding that the ordinance is null and void because its proponents failed to follow the procedural requirements of the Kansas initiative and referendum statute. View "State ex rel. Schmidt v. City of Wichita" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated arson, and aggravated endangerment of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting portions of the State’s pretrial motion to introduce certain out-of-court statements made by the victim; (2) excluding evidence that the victim had attempted or contemplated suicide in the past; (3) refusing to admit evidence that a hormone that the victim may have been taking had a side effect of depression; (4) excluding Defendant’s testimony about the victim’s use of marijuana; and (5) overruling Defendant’s objection to a prosecution witness’s reference to Defendant’s narcissism during cross-examination. View "State v. Seacat" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of the rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated battery of his thirteen-year-old daughter, C.H. Defendant appealed, arguing that insufficient evidence supported his rape and aggravated criminal sodomy convictions. Defendant later filed a pro se petition pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512 seeking postconviction forensic DNA testing of certain items. The district court denied the petition after a nonevidentiary hearing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court’s denial of Defendant’s petition was founded upon its application of incorrect legal standards. Remanded. View "State v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded no contest to first-degree murder in exchange for the dismissal of one count of attempted murder and one count of aggravated arson. After unsuccessfully seeking to withdraw her plea before sentencing, Appellant filed four Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motions collaterally attacking her conviction. The motions were denied. Appellant subsequently filed two postsentence motions to withdraw her plea. The district court denied both motions. Appellant appealed the denial of her second successive motion. Appellant conceded that this motion was successive to others she filed and lost. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that there was no showing of excusable neglect because the motion was successive. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

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