Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a consolidated jury trial, Defendant was convicted of assault, battery, and criminal threat in one case and two counts of failure to register in another case. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in consolidating the two cases because the conditions identified in Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3202(1) were not met and there was a reasonable probability that Defendant was prejudiced by the joinder; and (2) the complaint charging Defendant with two counts of failing to register was jurisdictionally defective, but the State was not prevented from recharging Defendant. Reversed and remanded for separate trials. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged as a juvenile with alternative counts of first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder, among other charges, for offenses that occurred when Defendant was sixteen years old. The State filed a motion for adult prosecution (MAP) asking the district court to certify Defendant as an adult for prosecution of the charges. The district court granted the MAP and convicted Defendant of first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, and criminal possession of a firearm. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions. Defendant later filed a motion to correct illegal sentence, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred by construing Defendant’s motion as an improper method of attack, but the error was not prejudicial because Defendant’s claim was still considered, and properly denied, on the merits. View "Makthepharak v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated liberties with a child and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial court erred in denying his motion requesting that the victim undergo an independent psychological examination. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the Court could not ascertain whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion because a reasonably accurate and complete record of the trial proceeding did not exist. Therefore, the Court could not provide the meaningful appellate review that due process required. View "State v. Holt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of more than sixty offenses, including two counts of first-degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus 123 to 355 years. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed several motions for postconviction relief, including a motion for a new trial, which was the subject of this appeal. The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion, which was filed sixteen years after his convictions, as successive and untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the motion for a new trial was untimely, and therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the motion. View "State v. Holt" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana, possession of marijuana with no tax stamp affixed, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, concluding, among other things, that Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with no tax stamp were not multiplicitous. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana, holding that Defendant's convictions of possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with no tax stamp violated Kan. Stat. Ann 21-3107(2)(b)'s prohibition against a person being convicted of both a greater and a lesser crime. View "State v. Hensley" on Justia Law

After Defendant was charged with rape and other crimes, the district court appointed an attorney from the public defender's office to represent Defendant. The appointed attorney subsequently filed three motions to withdraw as Defendant's counsel. The first two motions were due to conflicts of interest. The district court forced defense counsel to represent Defendant at trial, after which the attorney/client relationship deteriorated to the point that all communication ceased. After the jury convicted Defendant of all charges but before sentencing, defense counsel filed a third motion to withdraw on the ground of prejudice and bias. The district court ordered the conflicted attorney to continue representing Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court's complete disregard for Defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel during his criminal prosecution was reversible error. Remanded. View "State v. Stovall" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine, and, after a jury trial, was convicted of criminal threat and theft. Defendant filed a motion for a downward durational and dispositional departure. After a sentencing hearing, the district court concluded that substantial and compelling reasons justified a departure from the sentencing guidelines for Defendant's conviction for cocaine possession but refused to depart from the sentence on Defendant's remaining convictions. The court of appeals panel vacated the departure sentence. The Supreme Court reversed the panel's decision and affirmed the district court's departure sentence, holding that substantial competent evidence supported at least two of the mitigating factors found by the district court and that those factors, when considered together, constituted substantial and compelling reasons to depart. View "State v. Bird" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several offenses, including the crime of forgery in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-3710(a)(2). Defendant appealed his forgery conviction, which was based upon his attempt to cash a $350 check at CheckSmart. Defendant argued that the terms "issuing or delivering" in section 21-3710(a)(2) established alternative means of committing forgery and that the State did not present sufficient evidence that Defendant issued the forged check. The court of appeals upheld the forgery conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the legislature did not intend to create alternative means of committing forgery, and consequently, the State did not have to present evidence that Defendant both issued the check and delivered the check; and (2) the substantial competent evidence that established that Defendant delivered a fraudulent check knowingly and with intent to defraud was sufficient to support Defendant's forgery conviction. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, arson, and aggravated burglary. On appeal, Defendant unsuccessfully challenged the district judge's denial of his motion to suppress a videotape of his interview with law enforcement. Defendant subsequently filed several motions, including a motion to correct an illegal sentence, raising issues related to the use of his statements to law enforcement. A later motion was also entitled motion to correct illegal sentence and contained arguments similar to those Defendant raised earlier. The motions were denied by the district court. Defendant appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the lack of an evidentiary hearing below did not preclude the Court's meaningful review; and (2) res judicata applied in this case. View "State v. Robertson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of capital murder for the intentional and premeditated killing of Rachel Dennis in the commission of, or subsequent to the commission of, attempted rape. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding, among other things, that (1) the prosecutor did not commit reversible misconduct by commenting on the defense expert's compensation or in drawing inferences from forensic evidence during closing argument; (2) the trial judge did not err in allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of Defendant's prior, premarital sexual relationship because the evidence was relevant, not prohibited by Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-447, and not unduly prejudicial; (3) the trial judge did not err in admitting opinion testimony of a lay witness regarding Defendant's state of mind; and (4) sufficient evidence supported Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Lowrance" on Justia Law