Dan Biles

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case involved the Shawnee County Board of County Commissioners seeking to reassess and tax three business aircraft for the years 2000 through 2002 after previously agreeing they qualified for exemptions under K.S.A. 79-201k. The aircraft owners had obtained final exemption orders from the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) based on their exclusive business use through leasing, but the County later attempted to impose back taxes, interest, and penalties following media reports about the lessee's use. BOTA and the district court ruled in favor of the owners on different grounds, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding that both claim and issue preclusion barred the County from relitigating the exemption status for those tax years because the original orders had become final with no change in the property's use. The court further rejected the County's arguments under K.S.A. 79-1427a and K.S.A. 79-214 as attempts to reopen valid final judgments.

taxespropertyprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim filed by John Brennan against his physician, whose $200,000 primary professional liability policy was issued by an insurer declared insolvent in 2002. The Kansas Insurance Guaranty Association (KIGA) denied coverage for the policy limits because Brennan had received over $500,000 in benefits from his personal health insurance, relying on a 2005 amendment to the Kansas Insurance Guaranty Association Act that expressly authorized such offsets and applied retroactively to pending claims. The district court held the retroactive application unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds and entered judgment for Brennan. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed on due process, ruling that the amendment created a new substantive right for KIGA to offset that did not exist under the prior statute and impaired Brennan's vested rights that arose when the insurer became insolvent, and it severed the retroactivity provision while declining to reach the equal protection issue.

torts & liabilityhealthcarecivil rightsprocedure

This case involves property owners challenging a special tax assessment imposed by Cowley County for costs incurred in cleaning up their land under a county resolution addressing unsafe structures and nuisances. The lower courts dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the Kansas Supreme Court analyzed whether jurisdiction existed under K.S.A. 60-907(a) for injunctive relief against illegal taxes or assessments, or under K.S.A. 19-223 for quasi-judicial board actions. The court determined that claims alleging the county exceeded its statutory authority under the Home Rule Act and that the resolution was unconstitutional as applied or involved arbitrary conduct could proceed directly under K.S.A. 60-907(a) because they challenged administrative or legislative actions, while other claims were properly dismissed. Accordingly, the court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to review the merits of the surviving claims.

propertyproceduretaxes

In State v. Berry, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder with possession of cocaine as the underlying felony after striking and killing another motorist while fleeing a traffic stop at high speed. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence on the felony-murder charge and remanded for a new trial. The court held that the judicially created felony-murder instruction rule, which had prevented giving lesser included offense instructions, must be abandoned because it was based on flawed reasoning and conflicted with the requirements of K.S.A. 22-3414(3), the statute governing when such instructions must be issued.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Brian Gilbert, a passenger in a parked car he did not own, who was arrested pursuant to an outstanding warrant; officers then searched the vehicle and found drugs and paraphernalia. Gilbert moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment, and the Court of Appeals had ruled he had standing to challenge it under Brendlin v. California. The Kansas Supreme Court held that Gilbert lacked standing to contest the search of the car because he had no ownership or possessory interest in it or its contents, distinguishing Brendlin (which addressed standing to challenge a traffic stop) from Rakas v. Illinois (which requires a personal privacy interest in the searched premises). The court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In State v. Levy, the defendant was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child under 14 and sentenced to two life terms under Jessica’s Law. On appeal, Levy challenged his sentence as disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, claimed a Sixth Amendment confrontation violation from the admission of a recorded victim interview at the preliminary hearing without the victim present for cross-examination, and argued ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the Eighth Amendment and confrontation issues were not properly preserved for review and that the ineffective assistance claim could not be considered for the first time on direct appeal under established precedent requiring such claims to be raised first in the trial court or through a collateral proceeding. The opinion noted that the factual record did not support deciding the ineffective assistance issue without further development and that appellate counsel had not conducted the required investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

In Campbell v. Husky Hogs, L.L.C., an at-will employee sued his employer alleging retaliatory discharge after being fired one business day after filing a wage complaint with the Kansas Department of Labor under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA). The district court dismissed the suit, holding that Kansas had not recognized a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine for such claims and that the KWPA supplied an adequate substitute remedy. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the pleadings stated a valid common-law retaliatory discharge claim because it fits within the public policy exceptions already recognized for exercising statutory rights like those under the Workers Compensation Act, and that the KWPA's administrative remedies address only unpaid wages rather than the termination itself and lack equivalent process or damages such as punitive awards.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Anderson, the defendant appealed the denial of his presentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea to first-degree murder in Kansas state court. The district court had found no good cause after resolving credibility issues between the defendant and his attorney regarding whether the attorney properly explained the plea agreement's sentencing implications, including a mandatory minimum of 25 years. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in crediting the attorney's later sworn testimony over his earlier admissions and finding that the defendant understood the terms of the plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Kelly, a defendant who had pleaded guilty in 1995 to first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery as a juvenile certified for adult prosecution filed a 2007 pro se motion titled 'Motion to Withdraw Plea and to Correct Illegal Sentence and to Vacate Sentence,' raising claims including ineffective assistance of counsel related to his plea. The district court treated the motion as an untimely K.S.A. 60-1507 claim and denied it without a hearing. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the district court should have liberally construed the pro se pleading's content as a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under the pre-2009 version of K.S.A. 22-3210(d), which permits withdrawal after sentencing to correct manifest injustice, because the allegations concerned whether counsel's failures prevented an informed and understanding plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Duncan, the defendant pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of aggravated battery under a plea agreement that included an upward durational departure sentence to 48 months' imprisonment, but later challenged the sentence after his probation was revoked. He argued the departure was illegal because the trial court did not empanel a jury to find aggravating factors as required by statute and Apprendi v. New Jersey. The Kansas Supreme Court held that Duncan did not make a valid waiver of his right to jury determination of those factors, as neither the plea agreement nor the plea hearing informed him of that specific right, only of his general right to a jury trial on guilt. The court reversed the lower courts, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing without the upward departure, applying its precedent that a general jury waiver does not cover the sentencing proceeding and the statute does not allow empaneling a jury after a guilty plea.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Nelson, the defendant was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder, burglary, and forgery after admitting he struck his stepfather repeatedly with a baseball bat during a confrontation stemming from prior disputes and forged checks. Nelson appealed, arguing errors including the denial of an imperfect self-defense jury instruction, flawed first-degree murder instructions, improper admission of prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455, and use of an incorrect standard of proof for aggravating circumstances in imposing a hard 50 sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings, but reversed the sentence because the district court applied the wrong burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt rather than preponderance of the evidence) when assessing aggravating factors and remanded for resentencing under the correct standard.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Nelson, the defendant appealed his convictions for premeditated first-degree murder, burglary, and forgery after admitting to striking his stepfather in the head with a baseball bat during a break-in, along with related forgery of checks from the victim's account. The Kansas Supreme Court rejected claims that the trial court erred by omitting an imperfect self-defense instruction, giving improper first-degree murder instructions, admitting prior crimes evidence without following K.S.A. 60-455 procedures, and other alleged trial errors. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the evidence and instructions sufficient and any procedural issues harmless or unpreserved. However, it reversed the hard-50 sentence for first-degree murder because the district court applied the wrong standard when finding aggravating circumstances and remanded for resentencing under a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Daniel, the defendant appealed her conviction for possession of methadone discovered during a warrantless search of her vehicle after her arrest for driving with a suspended license. The search was conducted under K.S.A. 22-2501(c), which authorized searches incident to arrest to discover evidence of a crime, but that statute was later held unconstitutional following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied because the officer reasonably relied on the statute's facial validity and then-existing case law at the time of the search, which occurred before Gant. The court extended prior precedent recognizing good-faith reliance on warrants to also cover reliance on statutes for pre-Gant searches. This resulted in the evidence being admissible despite the search being deemed illegal under later rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William P. Smith appealing the Kansas Department of Revenue's one-year suspension of his driving privileges following his arrest for driving under the influence. Smith challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to request an evidentiary breath test and argued that the statute authorizing a preliminary breath test based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause was unconstitutional; he also claimed his statements were obtained without Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's upholding of the suspension. The court reasoned that the officer's observations of alcohol odor, bloodshot eyes, admissions of drinking, open containers, and performance on field sobriety tests established probable cause, which exceeded the reasonable suspicion threshold for the preliminary test, rendering the constitutional challenge unnecessary. It further held that the questioning was not custodial interrogation, so Miranda warnings were not required, and the same facts supported reasonable grounds for the arrest and evidentiary test.

criminal lawprocedure