Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Kansas Supreme Court
by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Defendant's felony theft charge as multiplicitous and reversed the ruling of a panel of the court of appeals reversing that decision, holding that the State's theory of felony theft was insufficient as a matter of law on the facts of this case.Defendant was charged with one count each of felony theft and violation of the Kansas Retailers' Sales Tax Act. The district court dismissed the felony theft charge on multiplicity grounds. The panel reversed, concluding that the State presented sufficient evidence for the court to bind Defendant over on felony theft. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's arguments regarding the asserted incompatibility between statutory theft and a statutory Tax Act violation were unavailing. View "State v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the results of an evidentiary breath test (EBT) based on a violation of his statutory right to counsel under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1001(c)(1).In his motion to suppress, Defendant alleged that he invoked his right to counsel at least two times before the EBT was administered but that law enforcement failed to honor his statutory right to counsel after he submitted to the EBT. The district court denied the motion, concluding that a pre-EBT request for counsel is not sufficient to invoke the post-EBT right. The district court subsequently found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence. The court of appeals reversed, holding that section 8-1001(c)(1) is ambiguous as to the timing of a post-EBT request for counsel and permits the post-EBT right to counsel to be invoked either before or after the EBT. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that for a person properly to invoke the statutory right to post-EBT counsel, the plain language of the amended statute requires the person to make a request for counsel after administration of the EBT. View "State v. Kerrigan" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of, among other crimes, one count of first-degree felony murder based on the underlying inherently dangerous felony of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to establish that the jury instructions on his fleeing-and-eluding charge created an alternative-means crime by listing more than one felony for which he was attempting to elude capture; (2) the grand jury indictment substituted by the State for a pending criminal complaint was sufficient to invoke the district court's jurisdiction under established precedent; (3) the substitution of the indictment complied with Defendant's due process rights; (4) the prosecutor did not err during closing argument by telling the jury that a State's witness had no motive to be untruthful; and (5) the cumulative error doctrine did not apply. View "State v. Jordan" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court held that the award of credit under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6615(a) is not limited to time spent "solely" in custody for the charge for which the defendant was being sentenced, thus affirming in part and reversing in part the judgment of the trial court.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard fifty sentence on count 1 and sentenced count 2 to run concurrently. The court declined to grant Defendant any jail time credit. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) because Defendant spent 572 days in jail while his case was pending he must be awarded 572 days in jail time credit against his hard 50 sentences; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a downward departure sentence. View "State v. Hopkins" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court dismissing Dameon Baumgarner's wrongful conviction claim seeking compensation under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-5004, holding that Baumgarner was "imprisoned" for purposes of the wrongful conviction compensation statute because his sentence was controlled by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6603(g).Baumgarner was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm, and the district court sentenced him to a ten-month prison term, suspended. After Baumgarner was released from jail, the court of appeals reversed his conviction. Thereafter, Baumgarner brought this action alleging a wrongful conviction under section 60-5004, under which he was required to establish that he was "convicted of a felony crime and subsequently imprisoned." The district court dismissed the claim on the grounds that Baumgarner had not been "imprisoned" because he was not confined in a Kansas Department of Corrections facility. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Baumgarner was imprisoned for purposes of the wrongful conviction statute because his sentence was controlled by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6603(g), which contemplates sixty days imprisonment in a county jail as a condition of probation in felony cases. View "In re Wrongful Conviction of Baumgarner" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court judge summarily denying Defendant's motion for relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 and refusing to appoint him counsel, holding that the court of appeals properly affirmed Defendant's convictions based on res judicata principles.Defendant was convicted of one count of rape and sentenced to 272 months in prison. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant later brought his pro se motion under section 60-1507, asserting that his trial counsel did not adequately probe the alleged victim's veracity and that the alleged victim lied. The court summarily dismissed Defendant's case as untimely without appointing Defendant an attorney. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals correctly ruled that Defendant's motion failed based on res judicata. View "Quinn v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and other offenses, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several crimes. He was sentenced to a hard twenty-five for his felony murder conviction and to 142 months' imprisonment for the remainder of the charges, to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed both Defendant's convictions and his sentences, holding that the trial court (1) did not commit clear error by not providing the jury with a cautionary instruction regarding the credibility of accomplice testimony; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by ordering Defendant to serve his sentences consecutively. View "State v. Goens" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for aggravated kidnapping and vacated his sentence for that conviction but affirmed the remainder of his convictions, holding that the State did not present sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction.Defendant appealed his convictions to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant's disruptive pretrial behavior provided a lawful basis for the district court to deny Defendant's request to represent himself at trial; (2) Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction was supported by insufficient evidence; (3) the jury instructions on the lesser-included offenses of aggravated battery were not factually appropriate, but the instructional error did not warrant reversal of Defendant's aggravated battery conviction; and (4) the cumulative effect of the trial errors did not require reversal. View "State v. Couch" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of a panel of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's conviction for aggravated kidnapping, thus reaffirming that the three-part test fashioned in State v. Buggs, 547 P.2d 720 (Kan. 1976), to ensure that a defendant is not convicted of two crimes for identical conduct when a person confines someone with the intent to facilitate the commission of another crime, did not apply to circumstances such as those presented in this case.Under the Buggs test, a kidnapping conviction cannot stand if the confinement was "incidental to" or "inherent in the nature of" the other crime or if the confinement did not make commission of the other crime "substantially easier." The court of appeals concluded that the test applied to kidnappings, like Defendant's, committed with the intent to inflict bodily harm to terrorize a person. The court of appeals panel concluded that, under the Buggs test, insufficient evidence supported Defendant's aggravated kidnapping conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Buggs test did not apply to this case, where Defendant had confined the victim with the intent to inflict bodily harm or terrorize her. View "State v. Butler" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court overruled the holding in State v. Watson, 885 P.2d 1226 (1994) that the State can convict a defendant for attempted aggravated burglary without proving the defendant intended to enter an occupied dwelling, concluding that this holding is contrary to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5301(a).On appeal from his conviction, Defendant argued that Watson's holding was contrary to section 21-5301(a), which imposes a specific intent requirement for all elements of the crime of attempted burglary. The Supreme Court agreed and overruled Watson's holding but, at the same time, affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted aggravated burglary, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant intended to enter a dwelling that was occupied at the time he committed an overt act. View "State v. Larsen" on Justia Law