Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Clyde James Barnes Jr. was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, criminal threat, and violation of a protective order. The case arose after Barnes, who was on house arrest, tampered with his GPS ankle bracelet and traveled to the residence of his ex-partner, Jessica Leigh Smith. Barnes broke into Smith's home and brutally murdered her with a mattock. The crime was captured on surveillance cameras, and forensic evidence linked Barnes to the scene.The Johnson County District Court found Barnes guilty on all counts and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum of 620 months for the murder, plus additional consecutive sentences for the other charges. Barnes appealed, raising several issues, including the constitutionality of the territorial jurisdiction statute under which he was prosecuted for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment, claims of prosecutorial error, the admission of graphic photographs, the jury instructions on premeditation, and the sufficiency of the evidence for the tampering conviction.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the tampering charge under K.S.A. 21-5106(b)(3), as the proximate result of Barnes' tampering occurred in Kansas. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the closing arguments, determining that the prosecutor's statements were fair comments on the evidence. The court ruled that the admission of the photographs was not an abuse of discretion, as they were relevant and not unduly prejudicial. The court upheld the premeditation jury instruction, finding it accurately stated the law. Finally, the court concluded that sufficient evidence supported Barnes' conviction for tampering with electronic monitoring equipment and that cumulative error did not deny him a fair trial. View "State v. Barnes " on Justia Law

In 2016, Robert Edward Smith was involved in a home invasion that resulted in the murder of Donna O'Neal. Smith was charged with first-degree felony murder, aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated robbery, two counts of aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a weapon. The case was delayed due to extensive pretrial litigation and the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a mistrial in July 2021. Smith's retrial began in May 2023, where he was ultimately convicted on all charges.The Sedgwick District Court initially handled the case, where Smith raised several issues, including a violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial, prosecutorial error, and the right to present a defense. The district court denied Smith's motions, including his motion to dismiss based on the speedy trial claim and his objections to the State's mid-trial amendment of the information.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and addressed multiple issues. The court found that the 21.5-month delay between Smith's mistrial and retrial did not violate his right to a speedy trial, considering the complexity of the case and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The court also found no prosecutorial error in the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments and no violation of Smith's right to present a defense regarding the exclusion of third-party evidence and a probation violation warrant.However, the court agreed with Smith that the district court erred in including his 2003 criminal threat conviction in his criminal history score, as the statute under which he was convicted had been declared unconstitutional in State v. Boettger. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Smith's convictions but vacated his sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without including the 2003 conviction in his criminal history score. View "State v. Smith " on Justia Law

Christopher Adams faced multiple counts of battery for allegedly assaulting two men and his girlfriend, Stephanie Lang, outside a bar. Lang initially identified Adams as the attacker but later claimed she did not remember the incident during a preliminary hearing. Due to her inconsistent statements, the State charged Lang with perjury and interference with law enforcement and warned her of additional perjury charges if she testified similarly at Adams' trial. Lang invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, citing the risk of incrimination in her pending perjury case and potential new perjury charges.The Ellis District Court ruled that Lang could invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege despite the State offering her use and derivative use immunity, which would make her trial testimony and any evidence derived from it inadmissible in her pending perjury case. The court found that the immunity did not protect her from a new perjury charge. A majority panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the immunity was insufficient to protect Lang's Fifth Amendment rights due to the imminent risk of a perjury charge. Chief Judge Karen Arnold-Burger dissented, arguing that the threat of a future perjury charge cannot be the basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The court held that Lang's Fifth Amendment privilege was extinguished by the State's grant of use and derivative use immunity, which is coextensive with the Fifth Amendment protection. The court further held that the risk of a future perjury charge is not a valid basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege. The case was remanded to the district court with directions to compel Lang's testimony under the State's grant of immunity. View "State v. Adams " on Justia Law

POM of Kansas, LLC, owns and distributes Dragon's Ascent, an arcade game where players shoot dragons for prizes redeemable for cash. Concerned about the game's legality under Kansas law, POM sought approval from state agencies, which declined to provide a formal opinion. POM proceeded with the game's launch and filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act does not apply to Dragon's Ascent, that the game complies with Kansas' criminal gambling statutes, and that those statutes are unconstitutionally vague.The Shawnee District Court dismissed the claims against the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission and the Douglas County District Attorney, ruling that no real controversy existed as neither had investigated the game nor threatened prosecution. The court retained the Kansas Attorney General in the case due to the constitutional challenges raised. The district court later dismissed POM's claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and ruled against the constitutional challenges on the merits.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the issue of standing. The court held that POM lacked standing to seek a declaratory judgment about the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act because no defendant suggested the Act applied to Dragon's Ascent. The court also found that POM lacked standing to seek a declaration that Dragon's Ascent is lawful under Kansas criminal gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution or seizure of the devices. Finally, the court concluded that POM lacked standing to raise a constitutional vagueness challenge to the gambling statutes, as there was no credible threat of prosecution.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of POM's claims regarding the Expanded Lottery Act and the legality of Dragon's Ascent, vacated the ruling on the constitutional vagueness challenge, and remanded the matter for dismissal. View "POM of Kansas v. Kobach" on Justia Law

The case involves Kimberly S. Younger, who was convicted of capital murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, solicitation to commit first-degree murder, and theft. Younger was implicated as the principal organizer of the murders of Alfred and Pauline Carpenter, who were killed by Michael Fowler and Rusty Frasier, both of whom testified against her. The murders occurred at the Barton County fairgrounds, and the bodies were later disposed of in Arkansas. Younger was arrested in Arkansas, where she made several incriminating statements to the police and to Fowler, which were recorded.The Barton District Court convicted Younger based on the testimonies of her co-conspirators and other evidence. Younger challenged several evidentiary rulings, including the admission of her statements to the police and the testimony of Frank Zaitshik, who testified remotely due to COVID-19 concerns. The trial court allowed Zaitshik's remote testimony, finding it necessary due to the pandemic. The court also admitted Younger's statements made during her interrogation and to Fowler, finding them voluntary and not coerced.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions in part. The court held that allowing Zaitshik to testify remotely did not violate Younger's Confrontation Clause rights, given the pandemic's circumstances. The court also found that Younger's statements to the police and Fowler were voluntary and admissible. However, the court reversed the restitution order in part, finding that the State failed to justify the amount awarded to State Farm Insurance and that the inclusion of court costs in the restitution order was illegal. The case was remanded to correct the restitution judgment. View "State v. Younger" on Justia Law

In 2015, Brennan R. Trass was charged with first-degree felony murder and criminal possession of a firearm after killing Jose Morales during a drug deal. Trass admitted to the shooting, claiming self-defense. Before trial, the district court appointed multiple attorneys for Trass due to conflicts, causing significant delays. Two weeks before the trial in 2019, the court allowed Trass' attorneys to withdraw due to a conflict and ordered Trass to represent himself with standby counsel. During the trial, Trass was removed from the courtroom for refusing to participate, and his standby counsel took over. The jury convicted Trass.The Reno District Court initially handled the case, where Trass faced multiple attorney changes and delays. Trass filed a direct appeal, and the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court to determine the feasibility of a retrospective competency hearing. The district court found Trass competent before and during his 2019 trial. Trass raised several issues on appeal, including violations of his right to counsel, speedy trial rights, and sufficiency of evidence.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court violated Trass' Sixth Amendment right to counsel by forcing him to represent himself without proper advisories or warnings about the dangers of self-representation. The court concluded that Trass did not waive his right to counsel knowingly and intelligently, nor did he forfeit it through egregious misconduct. The violation of Trass' right to counsel constituted structural error, requiring automatic reversal of his convictions. The court also found no violation of Trass' statutory right to a speedy trial and sufficient evidence to support his felony-murder conviction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial before a different judge. View "State v. Trass" on Justia Law

A father, H.S., was in federal custody during a hearing to terminate his parental rights to his child, A.S. He attended the hearing via Zoom, while the hearing was otherwise conducted in person. The father argued that his limited ability to participate in the hearing amounted to a due process violation.The Leavenworth District Court held a permanency hearing and concluded that reintegration was no longer a viable plan for A.S., and that permanent custodianship or adoption was in the child's best interests. Subsequently, the State moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents. During the termination hearing, the father attended remotely but was unable to testify or meaningfully participate. The district court found the father unfit and terminated his parental rights. The father appealed, claiming insufficient evidence and a due process violation. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, rejecting the father's claims.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and focused on the due process claim. The court held that the father's due process rights were violated because he was not given the opportunity to testify, communicate with counsel, or otherwise fully participate in the hearing. The court emphasized that a parent's right to make decisions regarding the care, custody, and control of their child is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the risk of erroneous deprivation of this interest was high due to the procedures used, and that the State's interests did not justify the limitations placed on the father's participation.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the district court, and remanded the case for a new termination hearing that ensures the father's due process rights are protected. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law

Williams Nunez was charged with rape for engaging in sexual intercourse with a person unable to consent due to intoxication. He admitted to the act but claimed the victim was not too intoxicated to consent. A jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 155 months in prison with lifetime postrelease supervision, based on the finding that he was 18 years or older at the time of the crime.Nunez appealed, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey were violated because his age was not determined by the jury. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence, concluding that Nunez had sufficiently admitted his age through various documents and statements, and any Apprendi error was harmless.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Nunez's rights under Apprendi were violated. The court held that for a sentencing court to rely on a defendant's admission to increase a sentence, the admission must follow a knowing and voluntary waiver of the jury trial right. Since Nunez did not waive his jury trial rights regarding his age, the court found an Apprendi violation. The court also determined that the error was not harmless because the jury was not presented with evidence of Nunez's age.The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, vacated the district court's sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing. The court directed that Nunez be sentenced to 60 months of postrelease supervision under K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(1)(G)(ii), as this was the appropriate term given the lack of a jury finding on his age. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

Robert William Doelz was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. In 2019, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated due to a warrantless search, and the evidence obtained should have been suppressed. On remand, the State dropped the charge and did not pursue a retrial. Subsequently, Doelz sought compensation for his wrongful conviction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-5004, which requires proving actual innocence among other criteria.The Shawnee District Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, interpreting K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) to require a claimant to prove that their innocence resulted in the reversal of their conviction, dismissal of charges, or a not guilty verdict upon retrial. The court found that Doelz's conviction was reversed due to a Fourth Amendment violation, not because he did not commit the crime. Since there was no evidence explaining why the charges were dismissed, a material fact remained unresolved. At a bench trial, Doelz testified to his innocence, but the court granted the State's motion for judgment as a matter of law, finding that Doelz failed to prove the charges were dismissed due to his innocence.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that K.S.A. 2023 Supp. 60-5004(c)(1)(C) requires a claimant to prove actual innocence and that this innocence led to the reversal, dismissal, or acquittal. The court found that the legislative intent behind the statute was to compensate only those who are factually innocent. Since Doelz did not provide evidence that the charges were dismissed because of his innocence, he did not meet the statutory requirements for compensation. View "In the Matter of the Wrongful Conviction of Doelz" on Justia Law

Matthew Douglas Hutto pled guilty to two counts of felony murder and received two consecutive hard 25 life sentences. After sentencing, Hutto filed a pro se motion to withdraw his pleas, which the district court denied. Hutto appealed the denial, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. Before the deadline to file a motion for rehearing or modification of the Supreme Court's decision, Hutto was subpoenaed to testify against his accomplice, Richard Daniel Showalter. Hutto invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify. The district court ruled that Hutto no longer had the privilege and found him in contempt, imposing a six-month jail sanction.Hutto appealed the contempt finding, arguing that he retained his Fifth Amendment privilege because he had not exhausted all methods of attacking his convictions and sentences, including a potential motion for rehearing or modification and a possible habeas corpus motion. The Kansas Court of Appeals rejected Hutto's argument, holding that defendants lose their privilege against self-incrimination at sentencing when they plead guilty and do not move to withdraw their plea before sentencing. The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding of contempt.The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the proper standard to determine whether the Fifth Amendment privilege protects a witness from being compelled to testify is whether the testimony sought exposes the witness to a legitimate risk of incrimination, not a hypothetical or speculative one. The court overruled previous decisions that terminated the privilege at sentencing for guilty pleas. The court concluded that Hutto faced a legitimate risk of incrimination if forced to testify because he still had a legally viable opportunity to challenge the court's decision by filing a motion for rehearing or modification. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order finding Hutto in contempt and vacated the six-month jail sanction. View "State v. Showalter" on Justia Law