Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and related charges. The court sentenced Defendant to a controlling prison term of 774 months. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Defendant’s petition for review in part and affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated the sentence, holding (1) the information charging Defendant with aggravated kidnapping was not so defective as to warrant reversal; and (2) two prior Colorado misdemeanor convictions were improperly classified and aggregated with another misdemeanor conviction to be scored as a person felony for criminal history purposes. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Rodriguez" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence and unlawful exhibition of speed. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence of his driving under the influence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the traffic stop. The district court denied the motion and convicted Defendant. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1565, which prohibits an unlawful “exhibition of speed or acceleration,” was unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, and the good faith exception was inapplicable; and (2) alternatively, the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the court of appeals’ decision that the district court erroneously denied the motion to suppress on the grounds that reasonable suspicion did not exist to conduct the traffic stop; (2) summarily vacated the court of appeals’ determination that section 8-1565 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant; and (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions and vacated his sentences and fines. View "State v. Sharp" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated battery. After a preliminary hearing, Defendant moved for a grant of immunity pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231. After weighing the evidence, the district court granted Defendant immunity and dismissed the charges. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the complaint, concluding that the district court was required to view the evidence in a light favoring the State and, under the correct standard, there was probable cause to rebut Defendant’s claim of immunity and submit the case to a jury. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the decision of the district court, holding (1) because the Court announced a new rule of law enunciated herein, the Court of Appeals must be reversed; and (2) the district court correctly granted Defendant statutory immunity pursuant to section 21-5231. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. The district court imposed a hard fifty sentence for first-degree murder under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4635 without fact-finding by the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his hard fifty sentence, holding that Defendant was sentenced in violation of the Sixth Amendment because the district court, rather than the jury, found the existence of aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, in violation of Alleyne v. United States. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Mattox" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with aggravated battery. Defendant moved for a grant of immunity pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231(a) - the self-defense immunity statute - and asked for a probable cause hearing. The district court granted Defendant’s motion and dismissed the case against Defendant, concluding that he was immune from prosecution under section 21-5231 because, while he used “deadly force,” the presumption of reasonableness applied and the State failed meet its burden to demonstrate probable cause that Defendant’s use of force was not justified. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the district court’s grant of immunity, holding (1) the court of appeals erred by concluding that district courts must resolve evidentiary disputes in favor of the State when ruling on a defendant’s motion for immunity; and (2) the district court’s determination that Defendant was entitled to statutory immunity was both supported by substantial competent evidence and correct as a matter of law. View "State v. Hardy" on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed, raising three arguments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) with regarding to Defendant’s first and third issues, the court of appeals reached the correct conclusions; and (2) Defendant’s argument that his firearm should have been suppressed as evidence because it was obtained through an illegal search of his car was without merit because the search of Defendant’s car was legal under the exigent circumstances plus probable clause exception to the search warrant requirement. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree felony murder, multiple counts of fleeing or attempting to elude, and two counts of theft. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the felony murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court judge did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to sever the crimes by date; (2) the district court judge did not err in failing to instruct the jury on lesser degrees of felony murder; and (3) the district court judge did not err in relying on Defendant’s criminal history score to enhance Defendant’s sentencing without requiring the criminal history to be included in the charging document and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Ritz" on Justia Law

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