Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, criminal use of weapons, and driving a vehicle without the assigned tag. The victim was found shot multiple times, with his hands bound by rope. The evidence against the defendant was largely circumstantial, relying on testimony from various witnesses, many of whom had credibility issues due to their involvement with drugs and deals with law enforcement. No one testified to witnessing the defendant inflict harm on the victim, and the murder weapon was never recovered. However, forensic evidence and the sequence of events, including video surveillance and statements from associates, connected the defendant to the kidnapping and eventual death of the victim.The case was tried in the Sedgwick District Court, where the defendant did not testify or present any witnesses. During trial, the defense requested jury instructions on lesser included offenses—simple kidnapping and criminal restraint—which the district court denied. The jury found the defendant guilty on all charges and he was sentenced accordingly. On appeal, the defendant argued that prosecutorial error had occurred during closing arguments and that the failure to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses was reversible error.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the appeal. The court held that the prosecutor’s challenged remark during rebuttal argument was not error when viewed in context, as it was a permissible response to the defense’s arguments and did not comment on the defendant’s failure to testify or shift the burden of proof. Regarding the lesser included offense instructions, the court found that although the district court erred in failing to provide the requested instructions, the error was harmless given the strength of the evidence supporting the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions and sentence. View "State v. Arroyo " on Justia Law

After a fatal shooting in Topeka, Wesley Rayton was arrested and charged with several crimes, including first-degree felony murder, after admitting to firing a gun during an altercation that resulted in Michael Comp’s death. Surveillance footage and witness statements corroborated Rayton’s actions. As part of a plea agreement, Rayton pled guilty to first-degree felony murder in exchange for dismissal of all other charges in this case and in a separate pending case. He was thoroughly advised by the court and his attorney about the sentencing consequences, including a mandatory life sentence with parole eligibility after 25 years.Following his plea but before sentencing, Rayton wrote to the Shawnee District Court seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. He alleged he did not fully understand the plea, felt pressured, was under the influence of medication, and had only 24 hours to consider the agreement. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony from Rayton and his counsel, and reviewed the plea proceedings. The court found that Rayton had ample time to consider the plea, was not misled or coerced, received competent representation, and entered the plea understandingly and voluntarily. The motion to withdraw the plea was denied.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed Rayton’s direct appeal of the denial. Applying the abuse of discretion standard, the court considered the factors established in State v. Edgar: counsel’s competence, absence of coercion or misleading information, and whether the plea was understandingly made. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rayton’s motion, as substantial evidence supported the findings that Rayton was competently advised and understood the plea’s consequences. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "State v. Rayton " on Justia Law

The case involved a fatal shooting at a house in Junction City, Kansas, in May 2020. The defendant, an 18-year-old, was initially a guest at a barbeque where a 13-year-old girl and two men, Aaron Villarreal and Dylan Spencer, were present. After being told by Villarreal and Spencer to stop touching the girl, the defendant left but soon returned with an armed accomplice. Both men were armed when they re-entered the house. The confrontation escalated, and both the defendant and his accomplice fired multiple shots, resulting in the deaths of Spencer inside the house and Villarreal outside. Forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence linked the defendant and his accomplice to the shootings.The District Court of Geary County charged the defendant with two counts of first-degree premeditated murder. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder for Villarreal’s death and the lesser included offense of second-degree intentional murder for Spencer’s death. The court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment without parole for 50 years, plus a consecutive term for the second conviction. The defendant directly appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, raising multiple claims, including erroneous jury instructions, improper response to a jury question, prosecutorial error, insufficient evidence, and cumulative error.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas held that: foreseeability cannot establish accomplice liability for a specific intent crime like premeditated murder—the State must prove the defendant’s specific intent; the erroneous inclusion of foreseeability language in the aiding and abetting instruction was harmless and not clearly erroneous; the district court properly declined to give certain involuntary manslaughter instructions; the court’s response to the jury’s question was legally correct; the prosecutor’s statements were within permissible bounds; and sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no cumulative error. View "State v. Wright " on Justia Law

A woman was observed by a store asset protection manager removing multiple tools from a retail store, concealing them in her purse, removing security tags, and attempting to leave the store after paying for only one item. She was intercepted and signed a statement admitting to shoplifting. The State charged her with theft of property valued at least $50 but less than $1,500, alleging she had two or more prior theft convictions within the preceding five years. At trial, a jury found her guilty of theft. The presentence investigation report documented three prior theft convictions within five years, and the court sentenced her to a felony term based on those prior convictions.The Sedgwick District Court denied her motion for a directed verdict, which argued the State failed to prove her prior theft convictions to the jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction, concluding that proof of prior convictions was not an element of the crime but a sentencing factor, consistent with prior Kansas precedent such as State v. Hanks and State v. Loudermilk.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. The court held that K.S.A. 21-5801(b)(6) does not require the State to prove prior theft convictions to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt as an element of the offense. Rather, sentencing judges may rely on court records to determine both the dates and statutes of prior convictions if this is a mechanical or mathematical determination not subject to reasonable dispute. The court affirmed both the Court of Appeals and the district court, finding no violation of the appellant’s Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey or Erlinger v. United States, because the fact of prior convictions and their dates are not the type of facts that must be determined by a jury. View "State v. Calvert " on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who was charged with the first-degree premeditated murder of his former romantic partner, with whom he shared a child. The victim was found dead in their shared residence from a gunshot wound. Surveillance footage and testimony indicated the defendant had access to the residence and was present in the vicinity during the relevant time. He was interviewed by police on the day of the crime, during which he denied leaving his girlfriend’s hotel room the night before and denied owning any guns. The initial trial ended with a hung jury. Before a second trial, the defendant moved to suppress statements made during the police interview, arguing violations of his Fifth Amendment rights.In the Wyandotte District Court, the defendant’s motion to suppress was denied after a hearing. The court found that the pre-Miranda portion of the interview was not custodial and that the defendant’s post-Miranda statement did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to silence. The second trial proceeded, and the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, prompting this direct appeal.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant was subjected to a custodial interrogation prior to receiving Miranda warnings, making admission of his pre-Miranda statements erroneous. However, the court determined that the error was harmless because the same statements were properly admitted post-Miranda and supported by other evidence. The court further held that the defendant’s statement after receiving Miranda warnings (“No, ’cause I don’t know where this is going”) was ambiguous and did not clearly invoke his right to remain silent. Therefore, the admission of his post-Miranda statements was not error. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. McCullough " on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was convicted in 1993 of multiple violent sex offenses. Many years later, he filed a pro se motion in 2023, arguing that the district court had ordered a psychological evaluation three months before trial but failed to include the evaluation in the record or consider it at sentencing, as he alleged was required by statute. He claimed this omission meant the sentencing phase was never properly concluded, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction to impose his sentence. His appointed attorney expanded these arguments, suggesting the evaluation implied a finding of incompetence to stand trial and that this raised constitutional concerns about his conviction’s validity.The Sedgwick District Court summarily denied the motion. The judge found that the evaluation occurred before trial and was not required to be part of the sentencing record. The court also determined that the evaluation was not related to the defendant’s competence to stand trial, but rather to the potential for a mental disease or defect defense. The court took judicial notice of a prior, similar claim by the defendant and noted that his allegations were unsupported.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas first determined the nature of the defendant’s postconviction motion, construing it as a motion to correct an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504, rather than a habeas corpus motion. The court rejected constitutional arguments as improper for this procedural vehicle. On the merits, the court held that procedural errors alleged by the defendant, such as failing to consider the psychological evaluation, did not divest the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over sentencing. The court further held that failure to consider certain statutory factors does not render a sentence illegal under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court’s denial of the illegal-sentence motion. View "State v. Denney " on Justia Law

A Kansas Highway Patrol trooper stopped the defendant for speeding and observed signs of alcohol impairment, prompting a preliminary breath test. The test provided probable cause for arrest, and a subsequent certified breath alcohol test showed the defendant’s blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. The defendant was charged with driving under the influence and speeding. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress evidence from the preliminary breath test, arguing various grounds including that any consent to the test was involuntary due to coercion. The parties stipulated to certain facts for the suppression motion, intending to frame legal issues for appellate review, and the defendant waived his right to a jury trial.The Ellsworth District Court denied the suppression motion based on the stipulated facts, without explicitly addressing the voluntariness argument, and found the defendant guilty. On appeal, the defendant limited his challenge to the voluntariness of his consent to the preliminary breath test, raising new sub-issues about statutory amendments and the effect of an officer retaining a driver’s license. The State argued that there was no evidence of duress, but the Court of Appeals panel majority dismissed the appeal, finding the voluntariness issue was not preserved for appellate review because the defendant’s motion lacked specific factual allegations required by statute. The dissent argued the issue was preserved and warranted remand for clarification.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. The court held that under K.S.A. 22-3216(2), a suppression motion must state specific facts showing why a search or seizure was unlawful, not merely conclusory statements. Because the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts in his motion to support his claim of involuntary consent, the statutory obligations of the prosecution and the district court were not triggered, and the issue was not preserved for appellate review. View "State v. Anderson " on Justia Law

Thomas Gatewood pleaded no contest to several felony charges, including first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated battery, aggravated endangering a child, and aggravated intimidation of a witness. Prior to sentencing, the presentence investigation report classified Gatewood’s 2010 Oklahoma child-abuse conviction as a person felony, which elevated his criminal-history score to B and subjected him to a longer sentence. Gatewood objected to this classification, arguing that the Oklahoma statute was broader than Kansas’ person-felony criteria. The State responded that Gatewood was convicted under the injuring-torturing-or-maiming version of the Oklahoma statute, which required proof of bodily injury and the presence of another person—the child victim.The case was reviewed in the District Court of Sedgwick County, Kansas. At sentencing, the State produced the Oklahoma journal entry showing Gatewood pled guilty to “Child Abuse by Injury.” The district court determined the conviction was properly classified as a person felony and found Gatewood’s criminal-history score was B. Gatewood was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 615 months for felony murder, with a consecutive 228-month term for kidnapping, and concurrent sentences for the remaining offenses. The court also imposed several fees, including forensic services, a Children’s Advocacy Center assessment, and a sexual assault evidence collection kit fee. Gatewood did not object to these fees during proceedings.On direct appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, Gatewood challenged the person felony classification and the imposed fees. The court held that the State met its burden of proof and that substantial competent evidence supported the district court’s classification of the Oklahoma conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court affirmed both the sentence and the imposition of fees, declining to reach the merits of the fee challenges due to lack of preservation at the district court level. View "State v. Gatewood " on Justia Law

Christopher J. Allison was charged with multiple offenses, including theft, burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and terroristic threat. He pled guilty to the theft, burglary, and firearm charges. A jury convicted him of the remaining counts and found a statutory aggravating factor for first-degree murder, specifically that Allison committed the crime to avoid or prevent lawful arrest or prosecution. The jury determined this aggravating factor outweighed any mitigating circumstances, and the district court imposed a hard 40 life sentence, meaning Allison would not be eligible for parole for 40 years.After his conviction and sentencing, Allison appealed, raising various claims, but the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed both his conviction and sentence. In 2014, Allison filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that the sentence did not comply with certain statutory requirements. The Cowley District Court summarily denied the motion, stating the claims were not correctable under a motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. Allison later filed another motion to correct an illegal sentence in 2020, which was again summarily denied by the Cowley District Court.Reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas held that Allison’s hard 40 sentence was not illegal under K.S.A. 22-3504 because the procedural requirements of K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4624(5), (6), and K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4628 were met. The court also found that the district court’s consideration of statutory sentencing factors, including future dangerousness and threat to society, did not render the sentence illegal or constitute an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Allison " on Justia Law

Kyle Hardwick was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of theft, and solicitation of perjury for the killings of Phil Anstine and Marion "Ed" Bates at a rural property in Reno County, Kansas. The evidence included forensic findings, eyewitness testimony, and Hardwick’s own admissions. Hardwick testified that he acted in self-defense after allegedly being sexually assaulted and threatened with firearms by Anstine and then encountering Bates, whom he said fired at him. Physical evidence at the scene, however, conflicted with Hardwick’s account, including the location and condition of the victims' bodies and the absence of supporting ballistic evidence.The case was tried in the Reno District Court, where Hardwick requested a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense. The district court denied this request, reasoning that Hardwick was either justified in acting in self-defense or guilty of murder, depending on the jury’s view of premeditation. The jury was instructed on first- and second-degree murder and self-defense but not on imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter. Hardwick was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus additional concurrent sentences.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the conviction. The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense, as Hardwick’s testimony provided some evidence—however weak—for such an instruction. Nonetheless, the error was deemed harmless because the strong circumstantial evidence of premeditation supported the jury’s verdict, and the jury rejected lesser homicide charges. The court also held that Hardwick’s preserved challenge to the admission of his post-Miranda silence failed; he had “opened the door” to impeachment, and the State’s use of that evidence was limited and constitutionally permissible. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Hardwick " on Justia Law