Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence on the ground that incriminating evidence was obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure, holding that officers unlawfully detained Defendant and conducted an illegal search.Defendant was seated in a car lawfully parked in an apartment complex parking lot when two officers approached the car. Defendant's hands were clenched and held in front of him, and one officer commanded Defendant to open his hand. Defendant opened his hand and dropped a small bag of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court denied the motion, finding that the encounter was voluntary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the detention was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to detain Defendant, and therefore, the evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed because it was tainted by an unlawful seizure. View "State v. Andrade-Reyes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals ruling that the district court's error in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter was harmless, holding that the error was reversible because there was a reasonable probability that it affected the trial's outcome.Defendant, who had schizophrenia, killed a man who entered his apartment to exterminate bugs because he felt irrationally threatened by the victim. At issue during trial was whether Defendant's mental condition precluded him from forming a culpable mental state. The jury found Defendant guilty of reckless second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the district court erred when it failed to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction - an intentional killing done with the unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed justifying the deadly force - but that the instructional error was harmless under the so-called "skip rule." The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court's error in failing to give an imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter instruction was reversible because the jury could have reasonably convicted Defendant of voluntary manslaughter. View "State v. Barrett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the sentencing court properly classified Defendant's 1976 Michigan conviction as a person crime in accordance with State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019).Defendant pleaded guilty to a 2007 attempted robbery. A presentence investigation (PSI) revealed that Defendant had two prior convictions - a 1976 Michigan conviction for assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct and a 1979 Michigan conviction for criminal sexual conduct. The previous convictions were scored as person felonies, giving Defendant a criminal history score of B. In 2014, Defendant filed his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that both Michigan convictions should have been scored as nonperson felonies based on recent changes in law. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in accordance with Murdock, which holds that a sentence that was legal when pronounced does not become illegal if the law subsequently changes. View "State v. Weber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals majority's decisions to reverse the district judge's decision to suppress evidence and appropriate instructions for her further action on remand but altered the court's instructions to match those suggested in the dissent, holding that when a district judge's legal ruling in favor of the defense on a motion to suppress is infected with an obviously incorrect assessment of the State's evidence that is equivalent to an arbitrary disregard of a portion of the evidence, the district judge should have another change to review the record and explain himself or herself.Defendant was charged with drug related offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence, which the district court granted. A majority of the reviewing court of appeals panel reversed and remanded with instructions to deny the motion to suppress. Dissenting Judge Thomas E. Malone concurred in the reversal and remand but argued that the district judge should be permitted to reconsider the motion with a corrected understanding of the evidence before her. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district judge should not be directed to deny Defendant's motion but to reconsider it in light of a corrected understanding of the evidence before her. View "State v. Douglas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentence imposed by the district court in connection with Defendant's no contest plea to felony murder, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that the sentencing judge lacked jurisdiction to set restitution later and that there were aspects of Defendant's sentence that were ambiguous and illegal.Specifically, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's consecutive sentences on his convictions for felony murder and aggravated kidnapping, vacated the portions of the district court's judgment and nunc pro tunc order indicating restitution will be imposed at a later date and imposing post release supervision on Defendant's hard twenty-five life sentence, and affirmed the district court's order that Defendant's criminal possession sentence be served concurrently with his sentences for felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated assault, holding that the district court erred as regard to certain aspects of Defendant's sentencing. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court summarily dismissing Defendant's pro se motion for jail credit, holding that the lower courts correctly concluded that they lacked jurisdiction to consider Defendant's motion.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court and appellate courts had jurisdiction under the nunc pro tunc provision in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504(2), which states that clerical mistakes in judgments or other parts of the record may corrected by the court at any time. The Supreme Court held (1) the words "at any time" generally means that Kansas courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a clerical error occurred even after the time for an appeal has passed, which means courts can consider Defendant's motion; but (2) Defendant failed to meet his burden to set forth facts supporting an allegation that a clerical error occurred. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the State's authority to pursue a second trial against him on criminal charges, holding that the district judge's declaration of a mistrial in this case was error and that none of the circumstances allowing a second trial under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5110 applied.Petitioner was charged with rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and four counts of intimidation of a witness or victim stemming from his alleged sexual abuse of his three-year-old granddaughter. Petitioner's first trial ended when the district judge declared a mistrial on the grounds that the alleged victim, who was then four years old, did not respond when asked to take the oath required of all witnesses. The judge allowed the case against Petitioner to be tried a second time. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Petitioner successfully established that the district judge improperly declared a mistrial and that no exception to the statutory bar to a second trial applied. View "In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals vacating Defendant's sentence for trafficking contraband in jail, holding that the district court should not have included a Missouri municipal ordinance violation for endangering the welfare of a child as a person misdemeanor when calculating Defendant's criminal history score.The district court included in Defendant's criminal history score a 2005 Missouri municipal ordinance violation for endangering the welfare of a child. This ordinance violation is not a crime under Missouri state law. On appeal, Defendant argued that the sentencing court erred in classifying her ordinance violation as a misdemeanor. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded her case to the district court for resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in including the municipal ordinance violation in Defendant's criminal history; and (2) the error scoring the violation as a misdemeanor was not harmless. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw plea but vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision portion of his sentence, holding that the district court had no authority to order lifetime postrelease supervision and that the journal entry must be corrected to show that the district court waived the Board of Indigents' Defense Services (BIDS) administrative fee.Defendant pled guilty to two counts of felony murder, one count of aggravated burglary, and one count of aggravated robbery. Thereafter, Defendant moved to withdraw his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to two concurrent life sentences for the murders and 141 months' incarceration for the remaining crimes. The court also ordered a lifetime period of postrelease supervision and waived the BIDS attorney fee and BIDS administrative fee. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; and (2) this case is remanded with instructions to impose lifetime parole and to correct a clerical error in the journal entry regarding the BIDS administrative fee. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence in part and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court, on remand, did not comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court by changing Defendant's life sentence from running concurrent with, to consecutive to, Defendant's sentences for his two nonvacated on-grid crimes.The Supreme Court vacated the original hard fifty life sentence for Defendant's premeditated first-degree murder conviction because the sentence was unconstitutional. On remand, the district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence for that conviction and changed the life sentence from concurrent with, to consecutive to, the sentences for convictions for Defendant's two on-grid crimes. The court also changed Defendant's nonvacated sentences in length and sequence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence in part, holding (1) the district court erred on remand by changing the life sentence; and (2) the court also erred by modifying Defendant's two nonvacated, on-grid sentences. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law