Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for murder and aggravated robbery, holding that Appellant’s argument on appeal was not preserved for appellate review.On appeal, Appellant specifically contended that the State improperly published to the jury the victim’s autopsy photographs that he claimed were not admitted into evidence in violation of his rights to due process and an impartial jury. The Supreme Court held that because the defense remained silent during the display of the autopsy photographs to the jury and made no issue of the exhibits until appeal, the photographs are deemed admitted. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions for murder and aggravated robbery, holding that Appellant’s argument on appeal was not preserved for appellate review.On appeal, Appellant specifically contended that the State improperly published to the jury the victim’s autopsy photographs that he claimed were not admitted into evidence in violation of his rights to due process and an impartial jury. The Supreme Court held that because the defense remained silent during the display of the autopsy photographs to the jury and made no issue of the exhibits until appeal, the photographs are deemed admitted. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the district court’s order of restitution, holding that the court of appeals erred in ruling that the restitution statute requires a direct causal connection between the crime and the damages.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment, suspended in favor of probation, and imposed restitution. The court of appeals concluded that because Defendant was not liable for the entire restitution amount, the district court erred in ordering her to pay restitution. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision ruling that conspiracy to commit burglary does not legally cause damages that result from a corresponding burglary, theft or criminal damage to property, holding that the causal link between a defendant’s crime and the restitution damages for which the defendant is held liable must satisfy the traditional elements of proximate cause: cause-in-fact and legal causation. View "State v. Arnett" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals vacating the district court’s order of restitution, holding that the court of appeals erred in ruling that the restitution statute requires a direct causal connection between the crime and the damages.Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit burglary. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment, suspended in favor of probation, and imposed restitution. The court of appeals concluded that because Defendant was not liable for the entire restitution amount, the district court erred in ordering her to pay restitution. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision ruling that conspiracy to commit burglary does not legally cause damages that result from a corresponding burglary, theft or criminal damage to property, holding that the causal link between a defendant’s crime and the restitution damages for which the defendant is held liable must satisfy the traditional elements of proximate cause: cause-in-fact and legal causation. View "State v. Arnett" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly classified two prior Florida burglary adjudications as person felonies when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery and attempted kidnapping. The district court sentenced Defendant to a total of 122 months in prison, based upon a criminal history score of A. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6811(e)(3), the prior Florida juvenile adjudications must be scored as nonperson felonies. View "State v. Buell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed its holding in State v. Guder, 267 P.3d 751 (Kan. 2012), that the statutory changes to sentencing in the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4701 et seq. (KSGA), abrogated the common law authority of district courts to modify any sentences that were not vacated on appeal.Defendant’s sentence for his premeditated first-degree murder conviction was held unconstitutional and vacated on appeal. On remand, the district court imposed a hard twenty-five life sentence for that conviction and ran it consecutive to his sentences for his two on-grid crimes. For those crimes, the district court changed Defendant’s two nonvacated sentences in length and sentence. On appeal, Defendant asserted that Guder, together with the KSGA, barred the district court from resentencing on any nonvacated counts. The Supreme Court declined the State’s request to overrule Guder and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that, barring the need to alter a nonvacated sentence as a matter of law, the district court may only modify the vacated sentence. The court remanded this case for resentencing. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly classified a 1984 first-degree burglary conviction in Oregon as a person felony when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant pled guilty to one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his pre-1993 out-of-state burglary conviction should have been scored as a nonperson felony. The district court summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the Oregon burglary conviction must be scored as a nonperson felony because the conviction was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling as it existed when Defendant committed the crime in this case. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction for unintentional second-degree murder for shooting and killing his friend while they celebrated New Year’s Eve. The Court held (1) contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the statute defining unintentional second-degree murder is not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that Defendant acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (3) the district court’s procedure when answering a jury question did not violate Defendant’s right to be present at every critical stage of the trial, and the court’s answer to the question was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction about certain evidence was not in error. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly sentenced Defendant by misclassifying a 1988 Missouri conviction as a person felony, and thereby, miscalculating Defendant’s criminal history score as C, when it should have been E. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the judgment of the district court, and vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding (1) the Missouri conviction for second-degree burglary was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling; and (2) when Defendant’s current crime was committed, the State did not have a comparable offense to Missouri’s second-degree burglary, and therefore, that prior conviction had to be classified as a nonperson felony. View "State v. Wetrich" on Justia Law

The district court incorrectly sentenced Defendant by misclassifying a 2007 Michigan home invasion conviction as a person felony when calculating Defendant’s criminal history score under the revised Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act.Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm and theft. The sentencing court imposed a sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed two errors during closing argument, but the errors were harmless; and (2) the district court correctly classified the Michigan conviction as a person felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding (1) the prosecutorial error in closing argument was harmless; but (2) the Michigan conviction must be scored as a nonperson felony because the Michigan home invasion was not comparable to the Kansas offense of burglary of a dwelling as it existed when Defendant committed the crimes in this case. View "State v. Sturgis" on Justia Law