Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine after the vehicle in which he was a passenger was detained for a traffic stop and a law enforcement officer conducted searches of Defendant and his effects, including a cigarette package in which methamphetamine was found. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the evidence was obtained during an unlawful warrantless search. The district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the final search of the cigarette package was consensual and sufficiently attenuated from an earlier unlawful pat-down of Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) under the totality of the circumstances of this case, the nature of Defendant’s unlawful seizure rendered his consent to the search of the cigarette package involuntary and, therefore, invalid; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in refusing to suppress the evidence seized from the cigarette package. View "State v. Cleverly" on Justia Law

Pursuant to an agreement negotiated between Defendant’s attorney and the prosecutor, Defendant pled nolo contendere to amended on-grid charges of rape and attempted rape. Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, asserting that good cause for withdrawal existed because his attorney had provided ineffective assistance and coerced him to accept the negotiated plea bargain and that his prescription drugs rendered ineffectual the colloquy with the judge at the plea hearing. The district court denied the motion to withdraw plea and proceeded to sentence Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support Defendant’s claim of good cause to withdraw his plea. View "State v. Schaefer" on Justia Law

The State sought to have Todd Ellison, a convicted sex offender, involuntarily committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. Under the Act, Ellison was entitled to a jury trial during which the State must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Ellison, however, waited in jail for more than four years without a trial. The district court concluded that the delay violated Ellison’s due process rights, dismissed the action, and ordered Ellison released. A court of appeals panel reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings to more fully address the due process issue. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and affirmed the order of release, holding (1) the district court did not err when it applied Barker v. Wingo to Ellison’s due process claim; and (2) the court of appeals panel erred when it concluded that the district court failed to render adequate factual findings and incorrectly based its release order solely on the length of delay. View "In re Care & Treatment of Ellison" on Justia Law