Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of possession of cocaine, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and related offenses, holding primarily that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress drug evidence found in Defendant’s vehicle after a police officer’s warrantless search.Specifically, the Court held (1) the initial seizure of Defendant’s person did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights, and his extended holding in the police car did not make his seizure illegal; (2) even if there were an initial vehicle seizure when pulling Defendant over to effect his arrest, that seizure ended when Defendant parked the car, got out, locked it, and stated he would not consent to its search; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s fleeing conviction. View "State v. Parker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s sentence of life without the possibility of parole for fifty years (hard fifty sentence), holding that the district court’s retroactive application of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6620 did not violate the prohibition on ex post facto laws.Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to a hard fifty sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the hard fifty sentence and remanded. On remand, the district court again imposed a hard fifty sentence. Defendant appealed the district court’s determination that it could retroactively apply the hard fifty sentencing procedures of section 21-6620. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the retroactive application of the hard fifty sentencing procedures in section 21-6620 to Defendant’s resentencing did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. View "State v. Hayes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motions to modify his sentence and to order a new presentence investigation report (PSI) on remand from the decision of the Court of Appeals vacating Defendant’s original sentence, holding that Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court’s denial of his request for a new PSI but that remand was required for the district court to consider anew the possibility of probation on the record.After a resentencing hearing, the district court imposed life imprisonment for Defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder. Defendant later filed a motion to modify or reduce his sentence claiming that he should have been given an updated PSI for the court to consider that took into account his changed physical condition since the last report and that the court erred in not ordering probation. The district court denied the motion for modification and declared moot his motion for a new PSI, ruling that Defendant had received the only sentence available under the law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to request an updated PSI; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in not considering probation. View "State v. Rice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed defendant’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that Defendant was not prejudiced or deprived of a fair trial.Specifically, the Court held (1) while the state’s witnesses violated the district court’s order in limine, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for mistrial on those grounds; (2) the sequential ordering of the jury instructions for the degrees of homicide was legally correct; (3) the failure to give a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 limiting instruction on the evidence in Sims' stipulation to a prior felony conviction was erroneous, but it was not clearly erroneous; and (4) the totality of the circumstances did not prejudice Defendant or deprive him of a fair trial. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming Defendant’s conviction for one count of possession or use of a commercial explosive, holding that, although several errors occurred during Defendant’s trial, the errors and assumed errors, even taken in their cumulative effect, did not prejudicially effect the jury’s verdict.Defendant’s conduct leading to his convictions was putting gunpowder in a beer can and lighting it with a fuse. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it allowed the State to use the phrases “pipe bomb” and “improvised explosive device” to describe the devices he constructed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show that the use of the words at issue was improper or unfairly prejudiced his defense; (2) any error in the court’s admission of testimony that the legally obtained items were combined to make an “illegal improvised explosive device” was harmless; and (3) any error in the jury instructions was harmless. View "State v. Ingham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and domestic battery, holding that while the trial court erred in failing to give two lesser included offense instructions, neither rose to the level of clear error.Specifically, the Court held (1) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s aggravated burglary conviction; (2) Defendant’s convictions for aggravated burglary and domestic battery were not mutually exclusive or logically inconsistent; (3) the district court did not invade the province of the jury in instructing the jury that the State had to prove Defendant committed aggravated assault by using “a deadly weapon, a baseball bat”; (4) the district court made two instructional errors, but neither error was clear error requiring reversal of Defendant’s aggravated assault or aggravated battery convictions; (5) Kansas’ aggravated battery statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5413(b)(1)(B) is not unconstitutionally vague; and (6) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that the State had not met its burden of establishing the application of an established exception to the warrant requirement in justifying the constitutionality of the warrantless search of Defendant’s purse and wallet, holding that the search was not permitted under any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.This case arose from the action of law enforcement officers conducting a warrantless search of Defendant’s purse and wallet after an ambulance took her from the scene of an accident. The State argued that the plain-view exception and the officer’s administrative caretaking function of locating a driver’s license to complete an accident report justified the warrantless search. The trial judge granted Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the search violated Defendant’s constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the warrantless search was not permitted under any exception to the warrant requirement, and therefore, the evidence seized during the search must be suppressed. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior domestic violence to show motive; (2) the trial court did not commit reversible error by denying Defendant’s request for jury instruction on the affirmative defense of self-defense and on the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter; and (3) there was no prosecutorial error that required a harmlessness analysis. View "State v. Haygood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted voluntary manslaughter, second-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm, holding that the district judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter but that the error did not require reversal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on a theory of imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included crime for the charge of second-degree murder. The Court of Appeals rejected the claim, ruling that such an instruction was not factually inappropriate. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the trial judge’s error in failing to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of second-degree murder was not clear error. View "State v. Pulliam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to pay $10,800 in restitution to a couple with whom Defendant and her daughter had been living at the time Defendant committed the crimes for which she was convicted, holding that Defendant should have been giving a hearing on the restitution issue.Defendant pled nolo contendere to two counts of interfering with law enforcement by falsely reporting a crime. After the district court sentenced Defendant, Defendant appealed the restitution order, arguing that the district court erred by declining to conduct a restitution hearing at which Defendant was present and by ordering a restitution plan that was unworkable. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the restitution order and remanded for the district court to conduct a restitution hearing, holding that the district court’s summary holding that the appropriate amount of restitution would necessarily exceed Defendant’s ability to pay was apparently based on an incorrect legal hearing. View "State v. Martin" on Justia Law