Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order obligating Appellant to register as an offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., following Appellant’s conviction for aggravated assault.On appeal, Appellant argued that the registration requirement was an illegal sentence because the district court did not make a factual finding on the record that he used a deadly weapon in the commission of a person felony, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4902. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that because there was no record that the court made a finding that Appellant used a deadly weapon in committing his crime of conviction, Appellant was not an “offender” as defined by section 22-4902(e)(2). View "State v. Gilkes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ sua sponte dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from the requirement that he register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., for his lifetime.Appellant pleaded no contest to kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated burglary. At the time of his crimes KORA required ten years’ registration. Statutory amendments between Appellant’s crimes and his plea, however, expanded the requirement to lifetime registration. On appeal, Appellant argued for the first time that his lifetime registration violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the federal Constitution. The court of appeals held that Appellant’s merits arguments could not be raised for the first time on appeal because they involved both factual and legal matters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s petition for review failed to challenge the lower court’s rulings upon which dismissal was based, and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to relief. View "State v. Pewenofkit" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of aggravated robbery and sentence of 570 months’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible constitutional or statutory violations.During trial, the district court admitted law enforcement’s video recording of Defendant in the interrogation room. The recordings were not played for the jury in open court, but the jury was permitted to take the exhibits into the jury room during deliberations. On appeal, Defendant argued that the way the district court handled the video recording violated his constitutional and statutory rights to be present at all critical stages of his trial and his constitutional right to a public trial with an impartial judge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not establish reversible constitutional or statutory error under the law in effect when his crimes were committed. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for multiple counts of rape and aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of aggravated robbery and sentence of 570 months’ imprisonment, holding that there was no reversible constitutional or statutory violations.During trial, the district court admitted law enforcement’s video recording of Defendant in the interrogation room. The recordings were not played for the jury in open court, but the jury was permitted to take the exhibits into the jury room during deliberations. On appeal, Defendant argued that the way the district court handled the video recording violated his constitutional and statutory rights to be present at all critical stages of his trial and his constitutional right to a public trial with an impartial judge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not establish reversible constitutional or statutory error under the law in effect when his crimes were committed. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The Court held (1) sufficient evidence existed such that a rational fact-finder could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the two murders; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by falsely claiming that one of the victims got a protection from abuse order against Defendant from the district court, and this error prejudiced Defendant’s due process right to a fair trial and required reversal; and (3) the prosecutor committed other errors in arguments to the jury and by disobeying a court order. The Court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Chandler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions for two counts of premeditated first-degree murder. The Court held (1) sufficient evidence existed such that a rational fact-finder could have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the two murders; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct by falsely claiming that one of the victims got a protection from abuse order against Defendant from the district court, and this error prejudiced Defendant’s due process right to a fair trial and required reversal; and (3) the prosecutor committed other errors in arguments to the jury and by disobeying a court order. The Court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "State v. Chandler" 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 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