Eric S. Rosen

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case involved Luis Mendoza, who pleaded no contest to raping an 11-year-old child and appealed his sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, along with lifetime electronic monitoring and the denial of a downward departure. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the 25-year mandatory minimum under Jessica's Law (K.S.A. 21-4643), holding that it controlled over a conflicting 20-year parole eligibility statute through harmonious statutory interpretation rather than the rule of lenity. It vacated the electronic monitoring condition because authority for such parole conditions rests with the parole board, not the sentencing court. The court also upheld the denial of the departure motion, finding the district court's decision reasonable given the severity of the offense despite mitigating factors like lack of criminal history.

criminal law

In State v. Coleman, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession without tax stamps, and possession of drug paraphernalia, based on evidence found during a search of his rented car following a traffic stop for speeding. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case, holding that the evidence should have been suppressed. The court reasoned that the initial stop was unlawfully extended for 35 minutes to an hour solely to await the arrival of a parole officer for a search, without the written arrest and detain order then required by K.S.A. 75-5217(a) and without independent reasonable suspicion justifying the prolonged detention. The opinion emphasized that officers may not arbitrarily prolong a traffic stop to facilitate a parole search or other unrelated investigation.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. McKnight, the defendant pleaded no contest to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, received a suspended sentence with probation, and later had his probation revoked, at which point the trial court imposed a modified prison term without postrelease supervision based on a misunderstanding of the applicable statute. The trial court later attempted to correct the sentence by adding postrelease supervision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that the original revocation sentence was illegal. The Kansas Supreme Court held that K.S.A. 22-3716(b) permits a trial court to impose any lesser sentence upon revocation, including one without postrelease supervision, making the revocation sentence legal and not subject to later modification. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and district court, vacated the postrelease supervision, and reinstated the original revocation sentence of 22 months' incarceration with no postrelease supervision.

criminal lawprocedure

Judith Berry, a nurse participating in Kansas's KNAP alcohol recovery program, sued testing companies NMS and Compass after EtG urinalysis results came back positive, leading to her suspension and license revocation. The district court dismissed her negligence and consumer protection claims for failure to state a claim. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, finding that the companies owed Berry a duty of care because she was a foreseeable plaintiff harmed by allegedly unreliable testing cutoffs that failed to account for incidental alcohol exposure. The court held that public policy did not bar such claims against private contractors working with a state agency, remanding the case for further proceedings.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved James Bryant, a service technician, who sought workers' compensation benefits for back injuries sustained while stooping to retrieve tools and leaning over during welding on the job. The administrative law judge and Workers Compensation Board awarded benefits, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the injuries resulted from normal activities of daily living. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that Bryant's injuries were compensable under the workers compensation statute because they occurred in the context of specific work-related tasks rather than isolated movements common to daily life. The court emphasized evaluating the overall employment context of the activities instead of focusing on individual body motions.

labor & employment

The case involved Kevin Hernandez, who was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and residential burglary after evidence showed he broke into Adam Hooks' trailer, stole items, killed and dismembered Hooks, and disposed of the body parts in a vehicle. Hernandez received a life sentence with a hard 50 mandatory minimum on the murder charge plus a consecutive 74-month term for the other offenses. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions and sentences, ruling that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review presumptive sentences and that the trial court's assessment of BIDS attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion because Hernandez might have limited ability to pay through employment during incarceration.

criminal law

The case involved Julie Stieben's conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol following a traffic stop by a Kansas Highway Patrol trooper who observed her car drifting over the fog line multiple times and noted signs of intoxication during field sobriety tests. After the jury began deliberations, it asked whether the defendant had crossed the fog line before the officer turned around; the trial judge answered the question based on his notes and the prosecutor's recollection without consulting the record or reading back testimony, stating that she had. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the conviction, ruling that the trial court's response violated K.S.A. 22-3420(3) by failing to properly address the jury's request for evidence and improperly invaded the jury's role as factfinder, which infringed on the defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial. The court held that the State failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, requiring reversal without addressing other issues such as the validity of the stop or arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the appeal of John Henry Horton's 2003 conviction for first-degree felony murder in the 1974 death of a 13-year-old girl, based on circumstantial evidence and later prisoner testimony. After the jury began deliberating in the second trial, defense counsel sought to introduce a recorded phone call suggesting possible coaching of one inmate witness, but the district court ruled it lacked authority to suspend deliberations and reopen evidence. The Kansas Supreme Court held that trial courts possess broad discretion to allow additional evidence even post-deliberations, citing precedents like State v. Murdock, and that the district court's refusal to consider the motion constituted an abuse of discretion for failing to exercise that authority. Because the record was insufficient to assess any resulting prejudice to the defendant, the court remanded for a limited hearing on whether reopening was warranted, while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

Randy Chavez appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one off-grid and one on-grid count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, both committed between 2005 and 2008. The district court imposed a 25-year mandatory minimum prison term with lifetime parole for the off-grid conviction under Jessica's Law and denied a motion for a guidelines departure sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the 25-year term, holding that the specific sentencing statute requiring a 25-year minimum controls over a general parole eligibility provision allowing release after 20 years. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying departure based on factors such as the duration of the offenses and victim vulnerability, but vacated the lifetime electronic monitoring condition because sentencing courts lack authority to impose parole conditions.

criminal law

The case involved Andre Bailey's appeal of his convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, criminal discharge of a firearm, marijuana possession with intent to sell, and no tax stamp, arising from a 2007 home invasion robbery for marijuana that ended with the fatal shooting of Ricky Stewart. Bailey, who was 17 at the time, had been certified for adult prosecution under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 38-2347, and the trial included testimony from accomplices along with an incident where co-participant DaQuan Dean was called as a witness, made limited statements, and then refused to testify further. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the adult certification was proper under the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and that Dean had no valid Fifth Amendment privilege after his guilty plea and sentencing, so calling him did not create reversible prejudice. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of juvenile certification factors and precedent limiting self-incrimination protections post-sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Louie Martin, who was serving an indeterminate sentence for pre-1993 crimes and a consecutive guidelines sentence for a 1998 aggravated battery, and who challenged the Kansas Parole Board's application of a 2008 amendment to K.S.A. 21-4608 that extended his postrelease supervision from June 2009 to April 2020. Martin sought habeas corpus relief, arguing that the retroactive change violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court denied relief, finding the extension did not exceed Martin's original maximum sentence. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the amendment could not be applied to Martin because the period of postrelease supervision is part of the punishment and increasing it retroactively disadvantaged him in violation of ex post facto protections.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiffs who owned amusement game machines challenging the constitutionality of Kansas statutes under the Expanded Lottery Act that defined and prohibited "gray machines," seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against their enforcement. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the relevant statutes—defining gray machines and making their public operation a felony while allowing confiscation—were unconstitutional. The court's reasoning centered on the overbreadth of the definition, which encompassed nearly any mechanical or electronic device capable of being used for gambling without requiring actual use or connection to authorized systems, thus lacking a rational basis and infringing on property rights without due process.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

The case involved OT Cab, Inc., and its owner Ted Hill, who canceled their workers' compensation insurance after reclassifying drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. The Kansas Department of Labor imposed a $10,000 civil penalty for violating K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-532, which lower tribunals affirmed, while the Court of Appeals required a mandatory $25,000 penalty. The Kansas Supreme Court interpreted the statute's language of a penalty "in an amount equal to" twice the annual premium as allowing only no penalty or the full statutory amount with no discretion for lesser sums, and remanded for a determination of whether any penalty was warranted under the facts.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Sitlington, the defendant appealed his conviction for one count of rape of a child under age 14 involving his granddaughter between the ages of 4 and 7. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed issues including an allegedly erroneous jury instruction on the applicable time period under the statute of limitations and the improper admission of rebuttal testimony about other alleged acts under K.S.A. 60-455. The court determined that any errors were harmless because the victim's testimony was consistent and plausible, corroborated by other evidence, and the disputed testimony did not link the observed symptoms to the defendant or prejudice the outcome. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and the Court of Appeals decision.

criminal lawprocedure