Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves Dvonte Jamal Brown's direct appeal from his convictions for first-degree felony murder and attempted second-degree murder, stemming from a failed drug deal. On April 8, 2020, Richard and his older brother Michael planned to steal marijuana from Brown. Richard contacted Brown, who agreed to sell him marijuana. When they met, Brown took Richard's money without handing over the marijuana, leading to a confrontation where Brown shot Michael multiple times, resulting in his death. Richard then stabbed Brown, who fled the scene while firing additional shots.The Johnson District Court initially convicted Brown of attempted second-degree murder but the jury deadlocked on the felony-murder charge. Upon retrial, Brown was convicted of first-degree felony murder based on the underlying felony of distributing marijuana. The court sentenced Brown to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years and a concurrent 59-month term.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Brown raised six arguments, including challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, jury instruction issues, and the admissibility of evidence. The court found sufficient evidence to support Brown's convictions, noting that the State did not need to prove the presence of THC to establish the substance as marijuana. The court also held that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in admitting a shell casing with Brown's DNA, which linked him to the crime scene. The court concluded that the cumulative error argument failed due to the absence of any errors.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Brown's convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient, the jury instructions were appropriate, and the admission of the shell casing was not unduly prejudicial. View "State v. Brown " on Justia Law

Robert Cameron Grant pled guilty to two counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a child after police found nude images and videos of his 16-year-old girlfriend on his cell phones. Grant was 18 years old at the time. He later moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that his counsel failed to inform him about the statutory "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions related to teen sexting.The Sedgwick District Court summarily denied Grant's motion without a hearing, reasoning that the Romeo and Juliet statutes did not apply because the charges involved "sexually explicit conduct," which the court interpreted to include more than mere nudity. Grant appealed, and a divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed the district court's decision. The majority concluded that the Romeo and Juliet statutes did not apply to the charges of attempted sexual exploitation of a child. Judge Schroeder dissented, arguing that the Romeo and Juliet statutes might apply and that the case involved a factual question regarding whether counsel informed Grant about these exceptions.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the lower courts erred in their analysis. The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" in the Romeo and Juliet statutes is narrower than the definition in the sexual exploitation statute and does not include mere nudity. The Court also held that the district court should have considered defense counsel's performance in light of all the original charges, not just the charges to which Grant pled guilty. The Supreme Court concluded that Grant's motion raised substantial questions of fact that warranted an evidentiary hearing.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the district court and the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Grant's motion to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Grant " on Justia Law

Police identified the defendant as a suspect in a violent assault and rape after DNA evidence linked him to the crime. During a custodial interview, the defendant denied involvement and offered an implausible explanation for the DNA match. The victim died three days later, and the State charged the defendant with capital murder and rape. A jury convicted him on both counts, and the district court merged the rape conviction into the capital murder conviction at sentencing.Prior to trial in the Sedgwick District Court, the defendant moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing he could not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights due to cognitive impairments. The court heard testimony from expert witnesses for both sides and ultimately found the defendant had sufficient cognitive ability to understand his rights and denied the motion to suppress. The defendant also objected to the racial composition of the jury pool, requested an implicit bias instruction, and challenged the court’s refusal to remove a juror for cause. The district court overruled these objections and denied a motion for a new trial.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. The court held that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, finding substantial evidence supported the district court’s conclusion. The court also held that the defendant failed to demonstrate systematic exclusion of a distinctive group from the jury pool or substantial underrepresentation of Black jurors. The court found no error in the district court’s refusal to give an implicit bias instruction, as the requested instruction was not legally appropriate. Finally, the court held that the defendant was not prejudiced by the denial of a for-cause juror challenge because the juror was removed by peremptory strike. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. McNeal " on Justia Law

Three individuals, including the defendant, set out to purchase marijuana from a seller and his associate. En route, two of them decided to rob the seller instead. At the seller’s apartment, the defendant held several people at gunpoint while his accomplice searched for drugs. During a struggle, the defendant shot the seller in the face. The defendant denied involvement, claiming an alibi corroborated by his wife. Physical evidence, including DNA and video footage, as well as eyewitness testimony, linked the defendant to the scene. The defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, conspiracy, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm.The Johnson District Court presided over the trial, where the defendant raised several issues: prosecutorial error due to the prosecutor’s use of “we know” statements during closing argument, the prejudicial display of graphic photographs, limitations on witness questioning, acceptance of a stipulation regarding prior convictions without a jury trial waiver, and alleged speedy trial violations due to COVID-19 delays. The district court admitted the stipulation, allowed the display of photographs, and sustained objections to certain defense questions. The defendant was sentenced to a hard 25 years for felony murder plus additional consecutive and concurrent terms.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that the prosecutor’s “we know” statements regarding contested facts constituted error, but found the errors harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the strength of the evidence. The court ruled that the length of time admitted evidence is displayed is within the trial judge’s discretion and found no abuse of discretion here. It determined that the defense failed to preserve the issue regarding excluded witness testimony. The court found constitutional error in accepting the stipulation without a jury trial waiver but held it was harmless. COVID-19-related delays were weighed neutrally in the speedy trial analysis, and no violation was found. The convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Cherry " on Justia Law

Dennis O. Haynes III, serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, filed a motion requesting access to the warrants and their supporting materials in his criminal case. The district court granted him partial relief, allowing access to his arrest warrant and supporting affidavit but denying access to any search-warrant materials.Haynes initially pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including first-degree murder, in 2014 and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 20 years. Nine years later, he filed a habeas corpus motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which was refiled as a separate civil case. Subsequently, Haynes filed a postconviction motion in his criminal case requesting the probable-cause affidavits and all warrants. The district court denied this motion, but upon reconsideration, granted access to the arrest-warrant affidavit while denying access to search-warrant materials.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and K.S.A. 22-2502(d) grant defendants a personal right to access affidavits or sworn testimony supporting arrest and search warrants, respectively, but do not address access to the warrants themselves. The court affirmed the district court's order granting Haynes access to the arrest-warrant affidavit but reversed the order denying access to search-warrant affidavits. The case was remanded with instructions to produce any search-warrant affidavits upon receipt of the necessary fee for production. View "State v. Haynes " on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who pleaded guilty to the premeditated murders of his mother and stepfather. In December 2021, he forced entry into their home, using a stolen firearm to shoot his mother six times and his stepfather four times. The defendant did not contest his responsibility for the crimes. Prior to sentencing, he presented evidence of severe mental illness, a troubled upbringing, and his acceptance of responsibility, seeking more lenient sentences based on these mitigating factors.The Bourbon District Court considered the defendant’s request for concurrent “hard 25” sentences, supported by expert testimony regarding his mental health and background. However, the court found that, while there were mitigating circumstances, they did not rise to the level of “substantial and compelling reasons” required to depart from the statutory “hard 50” sentence for premeditated first-degree murder. The court imposed two consecutive hard 50 sentences, emphasizing the brutal and premeditated nature of the crimes and the impact on the victims’ family. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in both the length and the consecutive nature of the sentences.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed both sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. The court held that the district court acted within its lawful discretion in declining to depart from the hard 50 sentences and in ordering the sentences to run consecutively. The court found that the mitigating evidence did not compel a lesser sentence given the facts of the case, and that the decision to impose consecutive sentences was reasonable in light of the gravity of the offenses. The defendant’s sentences were affirmed. View "State v. Mitchell " on Justia Law

Brian Beck was driving on Interstate 70 when a Geary County sheriff's deputy noticed that a frame around Beck's license plate partially obstructed the state name. The deputy executed a traffic stop, during which Beck appeared nervous and provided an odd explanation for his travel route. The deputy called for canine support, and the dog alerted to the presence of drugs. Beck consented to a search, and deputies found methamphetamine in his car. Beck was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, possessing a controlled substance without a drug tax stamp, and interference with law enforcement.The Geary District Court denied Beck's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search, ruling that the partial obstruction of the state name on the license plate justified the traffic stop. Beck was found guilty on all counts by a jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, agreeing that the partial obstruction of the state name constituted a violation of Kansas law, thus justifying the stop.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that Kansas law does not require the state name on a license plate to be clearly legible, only the alphanumeric display and registration decal. Therefore, the partial obstruction of the state name did not provide reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. The court reversed Beck's convictions based on the evidence obtained during the search and remanded the case to the district court for a new hearing to determine if there were other valid grounds for the stop and seizure. View "State v. Beck " on Justia Law

A three-year-old child, C.V., died in February 2019 while in the care of his mother’s domestic partner, Uraquio Arredondo, in Ulysses, Kansas. On the day of the incident, C.V. was behaving normally until left alone with Arredondo. Later that day, Arredondo called 911, reporting that C.V. had been in an accident. Emergency responders found C.V. unresponsive with extensive bruising. Medical examinations revealed that C.V. died from multiple blunt force injuries, including a fresh skull fracture and internal bleeding, with evidence of both recent and older injuries. Testimony from the daycare provider and C.V.’s father indicated prior signs of abuse, with C.V. attributing some injuries to Arredondo.The State charged Arredondo with felony murder and child abuse. He waived his right to a jury trial, and the Grant District Court judge found him guilty on both counts, imposing a life sentence for murder and a consecutive sentence for child abuse. During the investigation, law enforcement entered Arredondo’s residence three times without a warrant. Arredondo challenged the admissibility of evidence from the second and third entries, arguing lack of valid consent and coercion. He also sought to suppress his statements to law enforcement, claiming they were involuntary and made without Miranda warnings, but he had not objected to their admission at trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas reviewed the case. It held that the second and third entries into the residence were lawful because Arredondo voluntarily consented to both searches, and the police lawfully secured the home based on probable cause. The court also found that Arredondo failed to preserve his challenge to the admissibility of his statements for appellate review. Finding no error, the court affirmed Arredondo’s convictions. View "State v. Arredondo " on Justia Law

A man was convicted of capital murder for the deaths of his girlfriend and her unborn child. The case against him was largely circumstantial. He reported finding the victim shot in her home, cooperated with police, and provided an account of his whereabouts, supported by his grandmother. The investigation included analysis of surveillance footage, U-Haul rental records, cell phone data, and forensic evidence, but no direct evidence placed him at the scene. The prosecution’s theory relied on the timing and mileage of a rented U-Haul, similarities between shell casings found at the crime scene and at a friend’s house, and the defendant’s purchase of a firearm and ammunition. The defense pointed to gaps in the evidence, alternative suspects, and the lack of direct forensic links.The Johnson District Court admitted some of the defendant’s statements to police, excluded certain ballistics testimony, and barred evidence of the victim’s past fears of an ex-boyfriend. After a three-week trial, a jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to life without parole. On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecutor repeatedly violated the court’s order in limine by discussing excluded ballistics evidence and improperly asserted as fact that disputed evidence was undisputed, among other claims.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas found multiple instances of prosecutorial error, including repeated violations of the order in limine and improper statements during closing argument that conveyed the prosecutor’s opinion on disputed facts. The court held that these errors were not harmless, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the meaningful gaps in the State’s case. Applying the constitutional harmlessness standard, the court concluded there was a reasonable possibility the errors contributed to the verdict. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "State v. Wash " on Justia Law

Brian Stubbs was convicted of criminal use of a weapon and interference with law enforcement after an incident where he stabbed Edward McCutcheon with a large kitchen knife. Stubbs arrived uninvited at McCutcheon's apartment, leading to a fight. McCutcheon was seriously injured, and Stubbs fled the scene. Police pursued Stubbs, who ignored commands to stop, leading to his arrest.The Douglas District Court convicted Stubbs of criminal use of a weapon and interference with law enforcement. Stubbs appealed, arguing that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutionally vague and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for interference with law enforcement. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Stubbs lacked standing to challenge the statute's vagueness because he did not show it was vague as applied to his conduct.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that Stubbs had standing to bring an arbitrary-enforcement challenge to the statute. The court explained that such challenges are inherently facial because they dispute the legislature's authority to enact the statute at all. The court found that Stubbs' conviction under the allegedly void statute presented a concrete injury, satisfying the standing requirements.On the merits, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the statute's prohibition on possessing a "dangerous knife" with intent to use it "unlawfully against another" provided adequate enforcement guidelines. The court concluded that the statute did not invite arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support Stubbs' conviction for interference with law enforcement, as the jury could reasonably conclude that Stubbs knowingly obstructed the officer's duties. The court affirmed the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the district court. View "State v. Stubbs " on Justia Law