Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's two criminal threat convictions and his domestic battery conviction and reversing Defendant's aggravated assault conviction, holding that, although the Court's reasoning differed from the court of appeals on Defendant's Brady claim, the court of appeals reached the right result.On appeal, Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the prosecutor had not timely disclosed a disciplinary report of a deputy sheriff involved in the incident. The court of appeals rejected Defendant's Brady argument in part because the prosecutor had not "suppressed" the report. The Supreme Court held (1) although the court of appeals' reasoning was infirm the court properly rejected Defendant's Brady claim because there was no reasonable probability that Defendant would not have been convicted if the report had been produced to the defense earlier; (2) there was no double jeopardy or multiplicity problem regarding Defendant's two convictions of criminal threat; (3) the prosecutor made an improper statement during closing argument, but the error did not contribute to the verdict; and (4) the district judge did not err by refusing to recall the jury or by denying Defendant's related motion for a new trial. View "State v. Hirsh" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court suppressing evidence obtained after police officers unconstitutionally detained Defendant, holding that the court of appeals erred in applying the attenuation doctrine under the facts of this case.In suppressing evidence obtained in a search of Defendant the district court concluded that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to detain Defendant. The court of appeals agreed but determined that the attenuation doctrine applied. Specifically, the court concluded that the officers' discovery of a preexisting arrest warrant after they seized and search Defendant attenuated the taint of the unconstitutional seizure. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the officers' duty to execute the arrest warrant did not attenuate the taint of the unlawful seizure. View "State v. Sanders" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court suppressing derived from a search because it found that the search resulted directly from a police officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant, holding that this case must be remanded to the district court for further findings of fact.Applying the attenuation doctrine factors set forth by the United States Supreme Court, the district court suppressed the evidence at issue. The court of appeals reversed the district court's ultimate decision, finding that an intervening circumstance attenuated the taint of the unlawful seizure and thus did not invalidate the later search. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in failing to consider the officer's discovery of an arrest warrant as a circumstance that intervened between the officer's illegal detention of Defendant and his search of her purse after arresting her; and (2) because there remained unanswered questions of fact, the case is remanded for the district court to make the appropriate findings of fact under the correct legal standard. View "State v. Tatro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court rejecting Defendant's claim that he was entitled to a new trial without holding a hearing on the merits of his claim pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), holding that the district court abused its discretion by denying Defendant's motion on the grounds that he was not legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim.In his motion, Defendant alleged that important information undermining the testimony of the State's star trial witness came to light for the first time while the case was on remand to the district court for resentencing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing, concluding that the request for relief based on the Brady claim fell outside the statutory time limit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Kansas' mandate rule did not deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to address the merits of Defendant's claims; and (2) there was no final judgment under Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3501(1) in this case, and therefore, the district judge failed to recognize that he was legally authorized to hear the merits of the Brady claim. View "State v. Soto" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that a police officer's discovery of an expired tag on Defendant's vehicle did not present an intervening circumstance that attenuated the taint of the officer's unconstitutional seizure of Defendant.Defendant was unconstitutionally detained by a police officer. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that officers obtained incriminating evidence as the result of an unlawful seizure. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Defendant's initial seizure was unsupported by reasonable suspicion but that the United States Supreme Court's attenuation doctrine analysis in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), applied to allow the admission of the evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that there was no attenuation of the taint of the illegal seizure, and therefore, the district court erred by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "State v. Christian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, and felony abuse of a child, holding that none of Defendant's claims of error warranted reversal of his convictions.Specifically, the Court held (1) a comment made by the prosecutor during closing argument was a misstatement that did not effectively shift the burden of proof, and there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict; (2) any error in failing to offer a lesser concluded offense instruction on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder was harmless; (3) the district court did not err in admitting two recorded jail calls between Defendant and his mother into evidence; and (4) Defendant's pro se arguments were insufficiently preserved for appellate review. View "Stewart v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute it, holding that the State provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because a mistake of fact existed, namely, that Defendant believed the packet she sold contained lawful incense, not a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State was required to prove that Defendant had knowledge of the nature of the controlled substance she possessed; and (2) the State proved through circumstantial evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed a controlled substance. View "State v. Rizal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of distributing a controlled substance and conspiring to distribute a controlled substance, holding that the court did not err in instructing the jury and denying Defendant's motion for acquittal.On appeal, Defendant challenged the conspiracy jury instruction, which alleged five overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, arguing that the instruction presented either a multiple acts or alternative means problem. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) no unanimity instruction was required because alleging several overt acts in furtherance of one conspiracy does not present a multiple acts case; (2) a jury instruction that lists several overt acts in furtherance of a conspiracy does not create alternative means for the crime of conspiracy; (3) Defendant invited any jury instruction error; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion for acquittal. View "State v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence and pro se motion to withdraw his plea filed more than a decade after Defendant's felony-murder conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it considered the State's written responses to Defendant's motions without appointing counsel to represent him.The State filed written responses to Defendant's motions, arguing that the district court could summarily deny the motions without appointing counsel for Defendant, that his sentencing challenge fell outside the scope of an illegal sentence, and that his plea withdrawal motion was untimely and failed to show excusable neglect. The district court summarily denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's statutory right to counsel was not triggered for either motion because the district court did not find a substantial issue of law or triable issue of fact in them; and (2) summary denial was appropriate as to the two motions. View "State v. Laughlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's 2015 motion to correct an illegal sentence with respect to his 1997 jury trial conviction for rape, holding that Defendant was attempting to avail himself of a subsequent change in law.In his motion, Defendant argued that his sentence was based on an incorrectly calculated criminal history score because a pre-Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act burglary conviction was erroneously classified as a person felony. The district court summarily dismissed the petition, stating that because the sentence was final long before the decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and State v. Dickey, 350 P.3d 1054 (Kan. 2015), these cases did not apply to Defendant's case retroactively. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals' affirmance of the district court's summary denial of Defendant's motion to correct and illegal sentence was not in error. View "State v. Dawson" on Justia Law