Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was found guilty of stalking and violating a protective order for placing telephone calls from the State prison to his former wife, D.K. D.K. knew, based on her phone’s caller ID, that Defendant was calling her from prison, but D.K. and Defendant never spoke over the telephone. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s conviction for stalking, concluding that insufficient evidence showed that Defendant had committed an “act of communication” as proscribed by the stalking statute, and remanded with instructions that Defendant be convicted of attempted stalking. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) Defendant committed an act of communication towards D.K. sufficient to find him guilty of stalking; and (2) the court of appeals did not err in affirming Defendant’s conviction for violating a protective order. View "State v. Kendall" on Justia Law

After a second trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree felony murder. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court for findings and conclusions relating to the issue of reopening the defense case based on evidence that emerged after the jury began its deliberations. On remand, the district court concluded that it would be inappropriate to reopen the case to allow Defendant to bring in the evidence because, among other things, the late introduction of the evidence would be prejudicial to the State where the State would have to overcome the likely undue importance attached to the evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court performed the duty that the Court instructed it to carry out on remand and did not abuse its discretion in its conclusions regarding the issue of reopening the case. View "State v. Horton" on Justia Law

A.M.M.-H. was sentenced in an extended juvenile jurisdiction proceeding in which he was given both a juvenile sentence and an adult sentence. The adult sentence was stayed pending successful completion of his juvenile sentence. After A.M.M.-H. violated the terms of conditional release on his juvenile sentence the district judge revoked conditional release and ordered A.M.M.-H. to serve his adult prison sentence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in this case, the district judge had discretion to determine whether A.M.M.-H.’s violation of the terms of conditional release warranted revocation of the stay of the adult sentence; and (2) because the record was unclear as to whether the district judge knew he had discretion not to execute the adult sentence upon a finding of violation of the terms of A.M.M.-H.’s conditional release, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the State’s motion to revoke. View "In re A.M.M.-H." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and filed a direct appeal before passing away. At issue was whether defendant's death made the appeal moot. In Kansas, the death of a criminal defendant does not automatically abate a defendant's appeal. The court held, however, that this nonabatement rule does not require the court to consider all issues in an appeal. Rather, an appellate court should consider whether an issue: (1) is of statewide interest and of the nature that public policy demands a decision, such as those issues that would exonerate the defendant; (2) remains a real controversy; or (3) is capable of repetition. In this case, the only issue that meets this criteria is an issue that might clear defendant's name, specifically his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. The court found no merit to that issue and affirmed the conviction. Because the remaining issues are moot, the court dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "State v. Hollister" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, attempted aggravated robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life for his murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in failing to give a lesser included instruction on unintentional second-degree murder; (2) erred by issuing an eyewitness identification jury instruction with the degree of certainty factor, but the error did not justify reversal; (2) erred by responding in writing to jury questions, but the error had no appreciable impact on the jury’s verdict; (3) did not err in refusing to grant Defendant a new trial because the jury learned that Defendant was previously in prison and that he was in custody during the trial; but (4) improperly sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years to life instead of twenty years to life, improperly subjected Defendant to lifetime postrelease supervision, and failed to inquire about Defendant’s ability to reimburse Board of Indigent Defense Services for attorney fees before ordering him to pay $1,000. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

Defendant and his brother were jointly tried, convicted, and sentenced for crimes committed in a series of three incidents in December 2000 in Wichita. Defendant was convicted of fifty counts, including four counts of capital murder, first-degree felony murder, attempted murder, sex crimes, kidnapping, and robbery. In a separate penalty proceeding, Defendant and his brother were sentenced to death for each of the four capital murders committed on December 15. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed thirty-two of Defendant’s fifty convictions, including those for one count of capital murder and for the felony murder; (2) reversed the three remaining convictions for capital murder because of charging and multiplicity errors; (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions for coerced sex acts because of charging and multiplicity errors; and (4) vacated Defendant’s death sentence for the remaining capital murder conviction because the district judge refused to sever the defendants’ penalty phase trials. Remanded. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

Defendant and his brother were jointly tried, convicted, and sentenced for crimes committed in a series of three incidents in December 2000 in Wichita. Defendant was convicted of forty-three counts, including first-degree felony murder, capital murder, first-degree premeditated murder, sex crimes, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated robbery. In a separate capital penalty proceeding, Defendant was sentenced to death for each of four capital murders committed on December 15. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed twenty-five of Defendant’s forty-three convictions, including those for one count of capital murder and for the felony murder; (2) reversed the three remaining convictions for capital murder because of charging and multiplicity errors; (3) reversed Defendant’s convictions for coerced sex acts because of charging and multiplicity errors; and (4) vacated Defendant’s death sentence for the remaining capital murder conviction because the district judge refused to sever the defendants’ penalty phase trials. Remanded. View "State v. Carr" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder and aggravated battery stemming from the death of one child and injuries sustained by another child. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty life sentence for murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) trial court did not err in failing to give an instruction on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of felony murder or failing to instruct the jury on a theory of reckless aggravated battery; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting a witness’s out-of-court statements; (3) the evidence presented to the jury established a compelling case that one child was killed as a direct consequence of child abuse; and (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during voir dire and closing argument. View "State v. Cameron" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm at an occupied dwelling, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) the district court erred in preventing Defendant from presenting evidence of other shootings taking place at the residence for the limited purpose of cross-examining crime scene investigators who testified about the manner in which the shooting in this case occurred, but the error was harmless; (2) the district court erred when it did not give a limiting instruction regarding evidence indicating that Defendant had committed other crimes or civil wrongs, but the district court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous; and (3) the district court did not commit prejudicial error in the remainder of its rulings challenged by Defendant. View "State v. Burnett" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under fourteen years old. The district court accepted Defendant’s no contest plea. At the sentencing hearing, Defendant sought to withdraw his plea. The district court denied Defendant’s motion and proceeded to sentencing. Defendant appealed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the district court erred by failing to inquire regarding an alleged conflict of interest between Defendant and his counsel and by failing to appoint conflict-free counsel to represent Defendant at the motion to withdraw plea and sentencing hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacated the sentence, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, Defendant and his counsel alerted the trial court to a potential conflict between them, and the district court erred by failing to inquire further into the nature of that conflict; and (2) Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because he was not provided conflict-free counsel to assist him in arguing his motion to withdraw his plea. Remanded. View "State v. Prado" on Justia Law