Eric S. Rosen

State v. Hernandez

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-12 · cited 37×

In State v. Hernandez, the defendant was charged with aggravated indecent liberties with a child after an incident involving an 11-year-old victim and separately pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual battery in an unrelated case. The jury returned guilty verdicts on both the charged offense and the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated indecent liberties with a child, using separate verdict forms without instructions on how to handle lesser offenses, and the trial court imposed a life sentence without proving the defendant's age as an element. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the aggravated indecent liberties conviction and remanded due to the inconsistent verdicts and unproven age element, while affirming the 32-month consecutive sentence for aggravated sexual battery based on the defendant's criminal history. The core reasoning centered on the need for consistent jury verdicts and proper proof of elements for off-grid sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

State v. Turner

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-09 · cited 32×

In State v. Turner, the defendant, who had prior convictions for sexually violent crimes, was convicted of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, kidnapping, and criminal threat, leading the district court to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole under the aggravated habitual sex offender statute, K.S.A. 21-4642. Turner appealed, arguing that other sentencing statutes, including the general nondrug crime sentencing guidelines and persistent sex offender provisions in K.S.A. 21-4704, also applied and would result in a lesser sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the statutes were equally specific but inconsistent in the penalties they imposed. Applying the rule of lenity to resolve the conflict in favor of the defendant, the court vacated the life sentence and remanded for imposition of a sentence under K.S.A. 21-4704(j). The court also rejected the defendant's claim that the sentencing process violated constitutional requirements under Apprendi and related cases.

criminal lawprocedure

State v. King

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-09 · cited 12×

Kameron King was convicted after a jury trial of cocaine possession and failure to display a drug tax stamp, based on drugs found during a search incident to his arrest for prior misdemeanors. The Kansas Supreme Court held the arrest lawful under K.S.A. 22-2401, as the officer had authority to arrest for the earlier offenses even on private property. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that exclusion of three defense witnesses—who would have testified to a pattern of police harassment and evidence fabrication against King—denied him the opportunity to present his full theory that the drugs were planted. The sentencing challenge under Apprendi was rejected based on prior precedent. The court determined the evidentiary error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

Critchfield Physical Therapy v. Taranto Group, Inc.

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-09-30 · cited 34×

This case involves an interlocutory appeal challenging a district court's order certifying a class of plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Taranto Group, Inc., for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) arising from fax advertisements sent on Taranto's behalf between 2005 and 2008. The plaintiffs, including Critchfield Physical Therapy as class representative, sought damages for unsolicited faxes, with estimates of over 100,000 transmissions potentially at issue, though some recipients may have had prior business relationships or consent. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the class certification under K.S.A. 60-223, finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met, that common questions of law and fact predominated over individual issues, and that a class action was superior to other methods, while directing a minor modification to clarify the class definition. The court rejected arguments that individual consent issues or potential excessive damages precluded certification, noting that such defenses could be addressed later without undermining the initial determination.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

PROGRESSIVE PRODUCTS, INC. v. Swartz

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-08-26 · cited 20×

This case involves an appeal under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act by former employees of Progressive Products, Inc. (PPI), who were found by the district court to have misappropriated the company's protected formula for a pipe-coating compound called Ceram-Back, along with customer and pricing information. The defendants challenged both the misappropriation finding and the Court of Appeals' directive on remedies, which included a royalty-based injunction allowing limited continued use of the information. The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the district court's findings were incomplete regarding the basis for the royalty injunction—whether under extraordinary circumstances or specific statutory provisions like K.S.A. 60-3322—and thus could not support meaningful appellate review. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals in part and reversed in part, remanding the case to the district court for additional factual findings and legal conclusions correlating the remedy to the record.

business & regulatoryprocedure

State v. Pace

Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-08-19 · cited 3×

In State v. Pace, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated criminal sodomy under a plea agreement and moved for a downward durational departure from the mandatory sentence, arguing factors such as his age, upbringing, and mental limitations. The district court denied the departure motion and imposed a life sentence with a 25-year mandatory minimum, also ordering lifetime electronic monitoring upon parole. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the more specific statute requiring 25 years before parole eligibility applied over the conflicting 20-year provision. It further ruled that the sentencing court lacked authority to impose parole conditions like electronic monitoring, which is reserved for the parole board, and found no abuse of discretion in denying the departure because the offered mitigating factors were not substantial and compelling. The court affirmed the sentence but vacated the monitoring condition.

criminal law

Affiliations

Decision record

Eric S. Rosen

Affiliations

Decision record