Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, raising a number of issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the legal definition of “premeditation,” but this misstatement did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial and was therefore harmless; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or in its instructions to the jury; (4) Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated because of witness and juror misconduct or by the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges; and (5) cumulative errors did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

After his first trial ended with a hung jury, Defendant was retried and convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal from Defendant’s second trial, holding (1) the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to be protected from double jeopardy by allowing him to be retried for the same crimes without formally ordering a mistrial at the conclusion of his first trial; (2) there was sufficient evidence to affirm Defendant’s murder conviction; and (3) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the legal definition of “premeditation,” but this misstatement did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm. Defendant appealed, raising four assignments of error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by misstating the legal definition of “premeditation,” but this misstatement did not deprive Defendant of a fair trial; (2) the State’s exercise of peremptory challenges to strike African-Americans from the jury panel did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions for premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit-first-degree murder. View "State v. Kettler " on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s first-degree murder conviction, holding (1) because the trial judge in this case did not specifically instruct the jurors that they had to consider felony murder but, instead, instructed the jurors that they should only consider felony murder if they had a reasonable doubt regarding whether Defendant was guilty of premeditated murder, the jury did not appropriately consider the alternative of felony murder; and (2) the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "State v. Dominguez" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to first-degree premeditated murder and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for fifty years. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the state’s former statutory procedure for imposing a hard fifty sentence as utilized in this case violated the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution as interpreted in Alleyne v. United States because it permitted a judge to find by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of one or more aggravating factors necessary to impose an increased mandatory minimum sentence, rather than requiring a jury to find the existence of the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. DeAnda" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility for parole for fifty years. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the state’s hard fifty sentencing scheme was constitutional. Defendant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Following its decision in Alleyne v. United States, the Supreme Court vacated the Court’s judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of Alleyne. On remand, the Kansas Supreme Court vacated Defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial when it imposed the hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Astorga" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the prosecutor committed misconduct in two statements made during closing argument, but the misconduct did not deny Defendant a fair trial; (2) the trial court did not clearly err in failing to instruct the jury on unintentional but reckless second-degree murder; (3) the trial court did not err in its remaining instructions to the jury; (4) the trial court did not err in finding that there was no factual support for Defendant’s motions for mistrial; (5) the cumulative errors did not deny Defendant a fair trial; and (6) the district court had jurisdiction to award restitution after judgment was pronounced at sentencing. View "State v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of rape by penile penetration, rape by digital penetration, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties with a minor and received four concurrent hard twenty-five life sentences. Defendant appealed, raising seven issues. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s convictions, holding that the district court erred in failing to provide a unanimity instruction, as (1) there was evidence of multiple acts on each of the four charges against Defendant; (2) the court failed to instruct on unanimity, and the State failed to elect which of the multiple acts underlying each of Defendant’s charges was to be relied upon by the jury in its deliberations; and (3) the error was not harmless. Remanded. View "State v. King" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with thirteen felonies. On the morning trial was set to begin, Defendant’s counsel orally renewed a motion to withdraw at Defendant’s request. The district judge denied the motion. Defendant subsequently decided to change his plea from not guilty to no contest to one count each of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery. The district judge accepted the pleas. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, which the district court denied. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district judge denied his right to counsel by hearing the motion to withdraw plea without appointing a new lawyer for him. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, when Defendant filed his motion to withdraw plea, the district judge failed to give due consideration to whether Defendant was represented by competent counsel. In fact, neither Defendant’s counsel nor the district judge communicated all of the appeal rights Defendant would surrender as a matter of law by entering his no contest pleas, and “failure to follow the law is an abuse of discretion.” Remanded. View "State v. Kenney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of fifty years. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) any error in the manner in which the district court handled information about a previous murder trial in which Defendant was acquitted was harmless; and (3) the district court properly weighed the statutorily prescribed aggravating and mitigating circumstances before imposing the hard fifty sentence. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law