Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated intimidation of a witness in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5909 for allegedly attempting to dissuade a witness from testifying in a homicide proceeding. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant petitioned for review, arguing (1) the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, and (2) section 21-5909 is unconstitutionally vague or, alternatively, the jury was incorrectly instructed on the definitions in the statute. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction and vacated her sentence, holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Defendant dissuaded the witness from providing testimony. View "State v. Wilkins" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony driving under the influence as a three-time offender, refusing a preliminary breath test, and transporting an open container. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained when police officers entered his home without a search warrant. The district court judge denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, although its reasoning differed from that of the district judge and the Court of Appeals, holding (1) the officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant for driving under the influence before they entered his home; and (2) even if there was error, the error was not reversible. View "State v. Keenan" on Justia Law

After a bench trial on stipulations, Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder, three counts of aggravated battery, fleeing or attempting to elude a law enforcement officer, and battery. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court obtained a knowing and voluntary jury trial waiver from Defendant and did not err in allowing Defendant’s case to proceed under the stipulated facts agreement; and (2) this Court has no jurisdiction to consider Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a departure sentence. View "State v. Rizo" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated battery. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 154 months and ordered to pay $27,000 in restitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court erred by failing to explicitly instruct the jury on the burden of proof for self-defense, but the error was not clear error; (2) certain comments made by the prosecutor during closing arguments did not rise to the level of reversible misconduct; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant’s request for new counsel; and (4) the cumulative effect of the errors in this trial was not so great as to require a new trial. View "State v. Staten" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated burglary. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence for the first-degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter, unintentional second-degree murder, and reckless involuntary manslaughter; (2) the district court did not err by excluding evidence that the shooting happened in a high crime area; (3) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a trial continuance; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel; and (5) cumulative error did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

State v. Ortiz created judicial exceptions to the general rule barring untimely appeals. In the instant case, Appellant, who was sixteen years old at the time, pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree felony murder, aggravated kidnapping, and other crimes. The district court sentenced Appellant to life sentences for the murder and aggravated kidnapping convictions. Appellant asserted that he told his appointed counsel (Attorney) after sentencing that he wanted to file an appeal. Attorney filed a motion to modify Appellant's sentence but never filed a direct appeal of Appellant’s sentence. The motion to modify was overruled. Nearly two decades later, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal, a motion for an out-of-time appeal, and a motion for appointed counsel. The district court denied the motion, finding that the passage of time was a bar to Appellant’s appeal. Appellant appealed, arguing that he should be allowed to bring his direct appeal out of time, pursuant to Ortiz, because Attorney did not file an appeal despite Appellant’s direction to do so. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the case was presented to the Court without adequate factual findings. Remanded to the district court to make the requisite findings. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. After a trial, the jury convicted Defendant of the firearm charge but failed to reach a verdict on the murder charge. The district court subsequently declared a mistrial. Before the State pursued a second trial on the murder charge, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that any retrial would violate his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Defendant’s appeal, holding that Kansas statutes only allow an appeal in the case of a final judgment, which requires a conviction and sentence, and therefore, Defendant’s appeal was not properly before the court and must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. View "State v. Webb" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of capital murder and four counts of attempted capital murder. The jury sentenced Defendant to death on the capital offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not waive his privilege against self-incrimination by presenting a voluntary intoxication defense to the capital murder charges. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Supreme Court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the rebuttal testimony presented by the State in the form of Dr. Michael Welner’s expert opinion was admissible. Because the Supreme Court ruled that Welner should not have been allowed to testify at trial, the Court did not consider whether his testimony exceeded the scope of rebuttal. On remand, the Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Welner’s testimony did not exceed the proper scope of rebuttal allowed by the Fifth Amendment or by Kansas evidentiary rules; and (2) none of the remaining issues raised on appeal required reversal or remand. View "State v. Cheever" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to a hard twenty-five sentence and ordered to pay restitution. Years later, Defendant filed a pro se motion seeking leave from the district court to file his appeal out of time, arguing that his attorney failed to file a timely appeal despite Defendant’s request. The district court denied Defendant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite Defendant’s argument to the contrary, Defendant’s sentence was final for purposes of appeal; and (2) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s motion to file an untimely appeal. View "State v. Northern" on Justia Law

While executing a search warrant at Defendant’s residence, law enforcement officers seized marijuana and methamphetamine. None of the drugs bore the requisite drug tax stamps. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of numerous drug offenses. Relevant to this appeal were Defendant’s convictions for possession of marijuana with no drug tax stamp and possession of methamphetamine with no drug tax stamp. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) Defendant’s possession of both marijuana and methamphetamine without the appropriate drug tax stamps affixed constituted a single crime that should not have been charged in two counts, and therefore, one count is reversed; (2) Defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s closing argument; and (3) Defendant’s sentence was not unconstitutional. View "State v. Pribble" on Justia Law