Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Frye
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-04 · cited 101×
Anthony Frye was convicted of severity level 7 aggravated battery after a bench trial in district court. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Frye had not validly waived his right to a jury trial, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that reversal while also ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the district court neither advised Frye of his jury trial right nor properly accepted a waiver, that the issue could be considered on appeal to prevent a denial of fundamental rights even though it was not raised below, and that Frye's testimony established he intended the physical contact in a rude or angry manner. The case was remanded for a new trial.
criminal lawprocedure
Woods v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYCO/KCK
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-27 · cited 7×
This case involved James Woods' challenge to an eminent domain proceeding in which the Unified Government of Wyandotte County condemned his property and appraisers issued an award. Woods filed his notice of appeal from the appraisers' report 48 days after it was filed, exceeding the 30-day deadline set by K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 26-508, and argued that the government's failure to properly notify him of the report should extend the time to appeal. The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. The court held that the 30-day filing requirement is jurisdictional and that neither the district court nor the appellate court had authority to create equitable exceptions or extend the deadline based on alleged notice deficiencies. Any claims regarding improper notice or due process had to be pursued in a separate civil action rather than through the appeal of the appraisers' award.
propertyprocedure
State v. Portillo
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-27 · cited 17×
The case involved Jose Portillo's conviction for rape of a child under 14 after he was accused of forcibly raping D.B., the daughter of a woman with whom he had an affair. The State had charged only the on-grid severity level 1 version of the offense rather than the off-grid version subject to Jessica's Law, but the district court treated the omission as a clerical error, found Portillo guilty of the off-grid felony, and imposed a 240-month departure sentence. On appeal, the court held that the charging document was fatally defective for the off-grid offense because it omitted the essential element of the defendant's age, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to convict or sentence under that provision. The court found sufficient evidence to support conviction for the on-grid version of rape and therefore affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the applicable guidelines grid box.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Coman
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-30 · cited 104×
The case involved Joshua Coman, who pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal sodomy involving a dog and was ordered by the district court to register as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act due to the sexually motivated nature of the act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that Coman was not required to register. The core reasoning was that the legislature intentionally omitted misdemeanor criminal sodomy from the list of per se sexually violent crimes requiring registration, and the catch-all provision for sexually motivated acts does not apply to crimes specifically excluded from that list; the court applied principles of statutory construction including the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguities in favor of the defendant.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Sanchez-Loredo
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-23 · cited 94×
The case concerned a traffic stop of a vehicle suspected of transporting methamphetamine, where officers detained the driver for about 75 minutes to obtain a search warrant and then recovered drugs and paraphernalia during the search. The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the officers had probable cause but no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search because obtaining a warrant beforehand was practicable. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding that under the Fourth Amendment the automobile exception permits a warrantless vehicle search based solely on probable cause due to the vehicle's inherent mobility, without needing any additional showing of exigency. The court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Pennsylvania v. Labron and Maryland v. Dyson.
criminal law
State v. CARAPEZZA
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-09 · cited 4×
In State v. Carapezza, defendants Carapezza and Hughes were convicted of felony murder and related felonies but had their convictions reversed on appeal. On remand, the district court suppressed evidence derived from the defendants' immunized inquisition testimony under Kastigar rules, barring certain prosecutors and witnesses from participating in retrials. The State appealed, arguing incorrect burden of proof and no improper use of immunized statements. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, finding the State failed to prove its case was independent of the immunized testimony, as the investigation pyramid rested on that testimony and led to Paico's plea agreement implicating the defendants.
criminal lawprocedure