Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Two Wichita police officers stopped Gina Wilson after observing her fail to signal properly. Wilson admitted her license was suspended and refused consent to search her vehicle. Officers called for a K-9 unit, which arrived nine minutes later. The dog, Oden, indicated the presence of drugs, leading officers to search the car and find 30 oxycodone pills. Wilson was arrested and charged with possession of an opiate and driving while suspended.Wilson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The Sedgwick District Court denied the motion, finding no constitutional violation as the stop was not meaningfully extended. A jury convicted Wilson. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing that the dog sniff did not extend the stop's duration and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The court held that a drug dog's sniff of a vehicle's exterior is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since Wilson's car was legally parked and she admitted to driving with a suspended license, the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the dog's alert. The court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, concluding the search was constitutional and the evidence was properly admitted. View "State v. Wilson " on Justia Law

Ronald Johnson, serving a life sentence for a 2003 premeditated murder conviction, filed a motion in 2023 for postconviction DNA testing. Johnson was convicted of killing Dorothy Griffin, with evidence including a blood-stained Adidas jacket found in his sister's washing machine. Johnson's motion requested retesting of various items, including the washing machine hose, car parts, and the Adidas jacket, alleging that updated technology could prove his innocence.The Wyandotte District Court denied Johnson's motion. The State argued that Johnson failed to specify biological material in its possession for testing and that none of the items Johnson wanted tested were in law enforcement's custody. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, where Johnson testified and clarified his requests. The court found that Johnson did not prove the State had the items he wanted tested and denied his motion.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that Johnson's petition sufficiently stated a claim for testing only the washing machine hose, as it alleged the presence of blood. However, the petition was insufficient for other items, as it did not allege the presence of biological material. The court affirmed the district court's finding that Johnson failed to prove the State had the washing machine hose in its possession. Johnson's arguments for remand and due process violations were unpreserved and unsupported. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision denying Johnson's petition for postconviction DNA testing. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law

James D. Boatwright was convicted of first-degree murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The State's case relied heavily on the testimony of Boatwright's friend, who was driving the car from which Boatwright allegedly fired the fatal shots. Boatwright disputed this testimony, claiming he was not at the scene. The State presented evidence of close relationships among individuals involved, animosities, and events leading up to the shooting. Key evidence included text messages, phone calls, and a firearm linked to the crime found in Boatwright's residence.The Shawnee District Court found Boatwright guilty on all charges. Boatwright was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence for premeditated murder, 131 months for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and a concurrent term of 59 months for criminal discharge of a firearm. Boatwright appealed, arguing errors in jury instructions and prosecutorial misconduct.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Boatwright contended the district court erred by not giving an accomplice testimony instruction. The court found no clear error, noting the jury received a general credibility instruction and that Ivy's credibility was thoroughly examined during the trial. Boatwright also argued prosecutorial misconduct, claiming the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent, accused him of lying, vouched for Ivy's credibility, shifted the burden of proof, and appealed to community interests. The court found no prosecutorial error, determining the prosecutor's statements were within permissible bounds and based on evidence presented.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Boatwright's conviction, concluding there were no errors warranting reversal. View "State v. Boatwright " on Justia Law

Kyle D. Young entered a guilty plea to two counts of premeditated first-degree murder for the shooting deaths of George Kirksey and Alicia Roman. Young and Roman had a tumultuous relationship, and after their breakup, Young tracked Roman using a device. On New Year's Day 2020, Young confronted Roman and Kirksey, but Kirksey de-escalated the situation. The next night, Young shot and killed both Kirksey and Roman. Young fled to Mexico but was later apprehended. As part of a plea agreement, the State did not pursue the death penalty and allowed Young to seek a reduced sentence.The Sedgwick District Court, presided over by Judge Jeffrey Goering, reviewed Young's motion to reduce his mandatory life sentences from a minimum of 50 years to 25 years. Young presented expert testimony about his adverse childhood experiences, psychological assessments, and his potential for rehabilitation. Family members also testified about his difficult upbringing. Despite this, the district judge concluded that Young failed to establish substantial and compelling reasons to reduce his sentences and denied the motion, sentencing him to two consecutive life sentences with a minimum of 50 years each.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and applied an abuse of discretion standard. The court considered Young's arguments, including his limited criminal history, low risk of future violence, adverse childhood experiences, and acceptance of responsibility. The court found that reasonable people could agree with the district judge's decision that none of these factors, individually or collectively, constituted substantial and compelling reasons to depart from the statutory minimum sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny Young's motion for a reduced sentence and upheld his sentences. View "State v. Young " on Justia Law

During an August 2020 car chase, Adam Humphrey fired a bullet that struck a law enforcement officer's foot, causing injuries that required surgery. Humphrey pleaded no contest to aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer and received a 247-month sentence. At sentencing, the State requested over $40,000 in restitution for the officer's medical bills, but the document presented showed medical expenses of only $17,193.19, with the rest categorized under unexplained headings. Humphrey did not challenge the restitution amount at sentencing.The Saline District Court ordered the full restitution amount requested by the State. Humphrey appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the full restitution award. The Kansas Court of Appeals declined to address the merits, ruling that Humphrey's challenge was unpreserved because he did not object at sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that Humphrey's challenge was properly preserved for appellate review. The court held that substantial competent evidence must support every restitution award and that a defendant may challenge the sufficiency of evidence supporting a restitution amount on appeal without first objecting at sentencing. The court found that the State's evidence did not adequately support the full restitution amount, as only $17,193.19 was explicitly labeled as medical expenses.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's restitution order, and remanded the case for a restitution hearing to allow the State to present appropriate evidence to support the restitution amount. View "State v. Humphrey " on Justia Law

Marquise Johnson was injured when his friend, André Lewis, accidentally shot him while attempting to disassemble a handgun in a car. Lewis believed the gun could not fire without the magazine, but it discharged, hitting Johnson in the legs. Johnson sued the gun's manufacturer, importer, and seller, alleging the gun was defective for lacking certain safety features.The Lyon District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which provides immunity to firearm manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when their products are misused criminally. The court found that Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional and constituted a criminal offense under Kansas law, specifically the strict-liability crime of discharging a firearm on a public road.The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, interpreting the PLCAA to require an intentional discharge for immunity to apply. The majority held that because Lewis did not intend to fire the gun, the PLCAA did not bar Johnson's lawsuit. A dissenting judge argued that the PLCAA should apply because Lewis' act of pulling the trigger was volitional.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that the PLCAA bars product-liability actions if a volitional act causes the gun to discharge and the shooting constitutes a criminal offense. The court found that Lewis' deliberate trigger pull was a volitional act and that discharging a firearm on a public road is a strict-liability crime under Kansas law. Therefore, the PLCAA provided immunity to the defendants, and the district court's summary judgment was affirmed. The case was remanded to the district court. View "Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World " on Justia Law

Javan Ervin was convicted of seven counts, including felony murder, after a series of events that began when he arrived at a gas station with Jaime Chavez. Law enforcement officers were present to arrest Chavez. Ervin, driving on a suspended license, fled the scene in his truck when approached by an officer. A high-speed chase ensued, during which Ervin drove recklessly, eventually causing a fatal collision that killed Samantha Russell. Ervin was arrested after fleeing the scene on foot.The Sedgwick District Court found Ervin guilty on all counts, including felony murder based on the underlying felony of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Ervin appealed, arguing prosecutorial error, improper jury instructions, insufficient evidence for the felony murder conviction, and errors in the verdict form and sentencing.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the prosecutor did not err during closing arguments, as the statements made were supported by evidence. The court also found that the jury instructions were legally and factually appropriate, including the instruction on recklessness and the decision not to define "pursuit." The court determined that sufficient evidence supported the felony murder conviction, as the death occurred within the res gestae of the underlying felony, and there was a direct causal link between Ervin's actions and Russell's death. The court also upheld the verdict form's structure, stating it did not violate the presumption of innocence.However, the court found merit in Ervin's argument regarding jail-time credit. It held that the district judge erred by not crediting all days Ervin was incarcerated pending the disposition of his case, as required by K.S.A. 21-6615(a). The court vacated the jail-time credit order and remanded the case for an amended journal entry of judgment or a hearing if necessary. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentencing issue was remanded for correction. View "State v. Ervin " on Justia Law

Benjamin Ballard was charged with two counts of failing to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA). He was convicted on both counts by a jury. One conviction was for failing to register during his birthday month, which he did not appeal. The second conviction, which he appealed, was for failing to register every 30 days as a transient offender in September 2021.The Sedgwick District Court found Ballard guilty on both counts. Ballard appealed the second conviction, arguing that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he was a transient offender and that the district judge committed clear error by not instructing the jury on KORA's definitions of transient, reside, and residence. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence of Ballard's transient status and that the failure to instruct the jury on the definitions was not clear error.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Ballard's argument that the district judge erred by not instructing the jury on KORA's definitions. The court found that the definitions of transient, reside, and residence under KORA differ significantly from common understandings and that the jury was misled by the testimony and arguments presented. The court held that the error was clear and reversed Ballard's conviction for failing to register as a transient offender. However, the court found that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support a conviction. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Ballard " on Justia Law

Ricky Hollins was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder after an altercation with S.D. on October 21, 2020, resulted in S.D.'s death. Hollins intended to meet S.D. for a paid sexual encounter, but the situation escalated. The jury acquitted Hollins of a misdemeanor charge of buying sexual relations. Hollins was sentenced to a hard 50 life sentence and timely appealed, raising three issues.The Sedgwick District Court received a formal question from the jury during deliberations, along with informal concerns from two jurors about another juror's refusal to engage in group discussions. The district court judge, after consulting with counsel, reminded the jury of their duty to deliberate, despite Hollins' counsel's objections that this could create a coercive power imbalance.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Hollins argued that the district court's statement to the jury constituted "judicial comment error," but the court determined it was a jury instruction and reviewed it as such. The court found the instruction legally appropriate, noting it was similar to the Pattern Jury Instruction for deadlocked juries and did not coerce the jury into reaching a verdict.Hollins also challenged the premeditation instruction, which included language from State v. Bernhardt and State v. Stanley. The court found the instruction factually appropriate, given the evidence of a struggle between Hollins and S.D. Lastly, Hollins claimed cumulative error denied him a fair trial, but the court found no errors in the trial proceedings.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the jury instruction to engage in discussion was not legally erroneous, the premeditation instruction was factually appropriate, and there was no cumulative error. View "State v. Hollins " on Justia Law

Ronald Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to a hard 50 sentence. Over the years, he has filed multiple actions challenging his conviction and sentence. In January 2023, Johnson filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence, which the Wyandotte District Court denied without a hearing. Johnson then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. He subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed Johnson's claims that his sentence was illegal due to various clerical errors in the sentencing journal entry, including incorrect information about the sentencing judge, the plea, the date of sentencing, the criminal history classification, the presumptive sentencing range, and the statutory authority for his conviction. Johnson also argued that the sentencing judge should have recused himself due to a conflict of interest.The Kansas Supreme Court found that most of Johnson's claims involved clerical errors that could be corrected by a nunc pro tunc order. However, the court agreed with Johnson that the district court improperly imposed lifetime postrelease supervision for his off-grid crime of first-degree premeditated murder, which should have been subject to life parole instead. The court vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision and remanded the case with directions to issue a new journal entry of sentencing consistent with its opinion, including the imposition of lifetime parole.The court did not address Johnson's claim regarding the alleged conflict of interest, as it was not appropriate for a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court's decision rendered Johnson's motion to reconsider moot. The Kansas Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part and remanded the case with directions. View "State v. Johnson " on Justia Law