Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to 245 months’ imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant later filed a request for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-2512(a). The district court entered an order granting postconviction DNA testing. Before the testing was conducted and before any posttesting court proceedings were completed, the State brought an appeal “upon a question reserved” pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3602(b)(3). The court of appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because there had been no final judgment when the State appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court’s order granting testing was not a final order and could not be appealed by the State upon a question reserved, and therefore, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case. View "State v. LaPointe" on Justia Law

In two separate cases, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and attempted first-degree murder. The district court imposed a hard twenty-five sentence for the first-degree murder and a 165-month sentence for the attempted first-degree murder, to run consecutively. The district court ordered restitution in the amount of $12,406. The court did not order Defendant to begin paying the restitution while in prison. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that a restitution plan would not be unworkable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a reasonable person would not conclude that a restitution plan was unworkable under the facts of this case. View "State v. Holt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder for the killings of Darren Wornkey and Mikiala Martinez and other related crimes. The jury sentenced Defendant to death for the capital offense. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his death sentence, concluding that the Eighth Amendment required informing Defendant’s jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The United States Supreme Court reversed and returned Defendant’s case to the Supreme Court for further proceedings because there were unresolved penalty phase issues. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s death sentence, holding that the outstanding issues did not require reversal or remand. View "State v. Gleason" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder for the killing of the victim during the attempted distribution of marijuana. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived or abandoned his challenge to evidence that he was growing marijuana in his basement as well as evidence of prior sales by the victim at or near his house; (2) there was a sufficient causal relationship between the victim’s death and the attempted sale of marijuana; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s requested self-defense instruction; and (4) the district court did not err by failing to give a unanimity instruction. View "State v. Beltz" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of unlawful distribution of controlled substances and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. The district court sentenced Defendant to sixty-eight months in prison and thirty-six months’ postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) by failing to issue a unanimity instruction on the conspiracy charge; (2) by failing to grant Defendant’s directed verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence on all charges; and (3) in instructing the jury that the mens rea for the distribution of controlled substances charges was knowingly. View "State v. Cottrell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by admitting fourteen autopsy photographs of the victim; (2) the district court did not err by excluding evidence about a medical malpractice lawsuit the victim’s mother filed against a doctor who treated the victim before her death; (3) the prosecutor did not improperly bolster the mother’s credibility as a witness during opening remarks and in the examination of other witnesses; and (4) the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury sua sponte on unintentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of felony murder. View "State v. Love" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose a police report to the defense before trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial because it cannot be concluded there was a reasonable probability that, had the report been timely disclosed to the defense, the trial result would have been different. View "State v. DeWeese" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of felony murder, two counts of child abuse, and one count of interference with a law enforcement officer. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court improperly admitted statements Defendant gave to police after he allegedly invoked his right to counsel and that the statements were involuntary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his previously-invoked right to counsel, and Defendant’s subsequent inculpatory remarks were freely and voluntarily given; (2) the district court properly refused to give lesser included offense instructions on the felony-murder charge; (3) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant’s conviction of interference with a law enforcement officer; and (4) there were substantial and compelling reasons to impose upward departure sentences for the child abuse convictions. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to premeditated first-degree murder. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion requesting that the district court determine if he was a person with “intellectual disability.” The court denied the motion. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five life sentencing. During the pendency of this appeal, the legislature amended the statute that supplies part of the definition of intellectual disability in Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6622(b). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the recent amendments require consideration by the district court in its intellectual disability calculus. Remanded with instructions. View "State v. Corbin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count each of aggravated robbery, rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. In the following years, Defendant filed numerous state and federal claims, all without success. Defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking relief under Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507, asserting that his retained counsel in a previous section 60-1507 action had provided ineffective assistance in prosecuting his appeal. The district court denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed without addressing the merits, ruling that the motion in the present case was filed more than one year after the mandate issued in the previous case and, therefore, Defendant was precluded from bringing the present action as a matter of law. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court remanded, holding that, under the circumstances, the district court properly found an essential fact that was necessary to support its judgment on the merits, and therefore, the case must be remanded for the court of appeals to resolve the issue raised by Defendant in his brief. View "McIntyre v. State" on Justia Law