Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence, holding that a reasonable person would not find Defendant's acceptance of responsibility to be a compelling reason to override the statutory presumptive sentence of imprisonment.Defendant pled no contest to securities fraud and acting as an unregistered issuer agent. The district court granted a dispositional departure to probation from a presumptive sentence of imprisonment. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for resentencing, concluding that there was not a substantial and compelling reason to support departure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that no reasonable person would find that the limited responsibility Defendant took rendered Defendant's case a compelling deviation from the norm the legislature has established. View "State v. Morley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated battery, holding that none of Defendant's allegations of error required reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred in ruling on Defendant's motion for immunity under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231, and the appropriate remedy was to review the record of the original hearing to determine whether the State satisfied its burden to show probable cause that Defendant's use of deadly force was not statutorily justified; (2) the State showed probable cause under the totality of the circumstances; (3) the district court properly denied Defendant's request for a lesser included offense instruction to the aggravated battery charge; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for new trial. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and affirmed Defendant's remaining convictions, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the distribution conviction.A jury found Defendant guilty of felony murder, distribution of a controlled substance, attempted aggravated robbery, criminal possession of a weapon, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court reversed one conviction and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating Defendant's cases for trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of distribution; and (3) the jury instructions on Defendant's aggravated robbery, felony murder, and criminal possession of a firearm charges were not erroneous. View "State v. Crosby" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of aggravated arson, holding that where the State charged three identical counts of aggravated arson and the jury instructions and verdict form failed to distinguish those counts, this Court was unable to reliably associate particular conduct with the count of conviction, frustrating appellate review and adversely implicating Defendant's due process rights.Defendant was charged with three counts of aggravated arson. All charges were alleged to have occurred at different times. The jury convicted Defendant of one count and acquitted him of the other two. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because it was impossible to determine the jury's verdict as to which crime if found Defendant guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court's confidence in the propriety of Defendant's conviction for this criminal charge is undermined by concerns for Defendant's due process rights. View "State v. Coble" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court declined to retain Appellant's appeal under the "unique circumstances doctrine" and refused to make factual findings, holding that remand was required for factual findings regarding the circumstances of the untimeliness of Appellant's notice of appeal.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Later, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence and argued that he was entitled to relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507. The district judge denied the motion. Appellant filed a late notice of appeal, but the district judge did not make any findings on the record about the circumstances of the untimely appeal on the record. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings, holding (1) because the unique circumstances doctrine was eliminated as a source of appellate jurisdiction in 2011 it could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction in this case; and (2) maintaining jurisdiction on other due process-related grounds would require this Court to make factual findings, which this Court declines to do. View "State v. Hooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a downward durational departure from the presumptive hard fifty sentence for his convictions for two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion.Defendant pled no contest to two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, felony theft, and interference with law enforcement. Before sentencing, Defendant unsuccessfully moved for a downward durational departure from the presumptive hard fifty sentence for the murders. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a downward durational departure. View "State v. McNabb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the Defendant's convictions of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of cruelty to animals, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred when it included additional information in the standard premeditation Pattern Instructions for Kansas instruction; (2) did not err when it failed to instruct the jury on heat of passion voluntary manslaughter; (3) certain testimony did not violate Defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause; and (4) because there was no error, cumulative error did not deny Defendant a fair trial. View "State v. Stafford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the district court erred when it refused to grant a mistrial after a witness claimed to have "double memories" and gave premeditation jury instructions; (2) the district court did not err when it included additional language in the general Pattern Instructions for Kansas defining premeditation; and (3) premeditated first-degree murder and intentional second-degree murder are not identical offenses, and Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5402(a)(1) is not unconstitutionally vague. View "State v. Stanley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied vehicle, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor did not err in its comments to the jury during closing argument; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the instructions, as a whole, fairly and accurately stated the law and therefore were not erroneous; and (4) the district court did not err when it ordered Defendant to pay $7,000 in attorney fees. View "State v. Buck-Schrag" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of criminal discharge of a firearm, and one count of criminal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the proceedings above.On appeal, Defendant argued that the voir dire proceedings were closed to his family members and that not providing space for spectators violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court properly determined that the voir dire proceeding was open was reasonable and supported by substantial competent evidence; (2) the court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to admit certain testimony; and (3) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were not properly before the Supreme Court. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law