Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Supreme Court of Kansas
State v. Mitchell
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-11 · cited 45×
In State v. Mitchell, the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery based solely on the victim's eyewitness identification from a photo lineup six days after the crime, in which the victim expressed 100 percent certainty and claimed prior acquaintance with the attacker despite not knowing his name. Mitchell appealed, contending that the district court should have omitted the "degree of certainty" factor from the pattern jury instruction on eyewitness identifications because scientific research shows it is an unreliable indicator of accuracy. The Kansas Supreme Court held that this factor should no longer be included in the instruction, as it improperly encourages jurors to view greater certainty as evidence of greater reliability. The court nevertheless affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the instruction could not have misled the jury given the victim's prior familiarity with Mitchell and the extensive cross-examination that exposed weaknesses in the identification.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-11 · cited 104×
In State v. Anderson, a jury convicted Rashawn T. Anderson of intentional second-degree murder and reckless aggravated battery after he was identified as the shooter who killed one man and wounded another outside a Lawrence rap concert, based on eyewitness accounts, video footage, and testimony from his companions in the getaway car. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed claims that the trial court erred by instructing the jury to consider the degree of certainty in eyewitness identifications, that the prosecutor committed misconduct in closing arguments, that Anderson's right to testify was violated without an on-record waiver, and that cumulative errors required reversal. The court found error in the eyewitness instruction and improper prosecutorial comments but held both harmless under the case facts, determined no on-record waiver was constitutionally required, and concluded the errors did not cumulatively affect the outcome given the strength of the evidence against Anderson. It therefore affirmed the convictions and the Court of Appeals decision.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Preston
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-23 · cited 24×
In State v. Preston, the defendant was convicted of drug possession offenses after police found cocaine and marijuana during a warrantless search of a vehicle he was driving, following a pretextual traffic stop. Preston challenged the admission at trial of his prior drug conviction, arguing it violated K.S.A. 60-455 and State v. Boggs because he claimed he had no knowledge of the drugs. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the prior conviction evidence was inadmissible when the defendant asserts lack of knowledge about drugs in the vehicle. The court further found the error was not harmless, as the remaining evidence linking Preston to the drugs was not overwhelming and could have applied equally to the vehicle's owner. Other claims regarding the stop, searches, and use of refusal to consent were not addressed due to the reversal on the evidentiary issue.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Roberts
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-09 · cited 15×
The case involved Leslie Hugh Roberts, Jr., who pled no contest to one count of raping a child under 14 and received a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum under Jessica's Law, plus lifetime postrelease supervision, after the state dismissed 29 other counts. Roberts appealed for the first time, arguing the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment and Kansas Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his departure motion citing factors such as no prior criminal history and the victim's alleged consent. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the constitutional claims were unpreserved because they were not raised below, and the district court acted within its discretion after weighing mitigating and aggravating circumstances including harm to the victim as shown by her mother's testimony.
criminal law
State v. McCullough
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-02 · cited 273×
The case involved Cherish M. McCullough, who was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder after a fistfight at a Wichita convenience store escalated when she retrieved a knife from her car and fatally stabbed LaShonda Callaway. The principal issue on appeal was whether the jury should have received a self-defense instruction. The court affirmed the conviction and held that no such instruction was required because McCullough had willingly engaged in mutual combat and neither made a good-faith withdrawal nor did everything within her power to avoid the killing before reengaging with the knife. The court also rejected McCullough's other appellate claims, including challenges related to trial spectators and additional jury instructions.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Harris
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-02-03 · cited 41×
In State v. Harris, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, and criminal possession of a firearm after a shooting during a drug transaction, claiming errors in the district court's failure to instruct on lesser included offenses of voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense, denial of his motion to suppress statements made to police, admission of the surviving victim's pretrial photo identification, denial of a mistrial motion during jury selection, imposition of a hard 50 sentence without jury findings on aggravating factors, and inclusion of prior juvenile adjudications in his criminal history without jury proof. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence in full. The court held there was no error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, that the defendant's statements were properly obtained after Miranda warnings, and that established precedents upheld the constitutionality of the hard 50 sentencing scheme and the use of pre-L.M. juvenile adjudications in criminal history scoring without requiring additional jury determinations.
criminal law