Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized after a traffic stop and a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.Defendant was the front seat passenger in a vehicle stopped by officers for a traffic violation. Officers began removing the vehicle's occupants to facilitate a drug dog sniff, called for because of the nature of the stop and the officers' previous knowledge of Defendant. Officers observed drug paraphernalia in Defendant's immediate vicinity and called off the dog sniff before it began. Thereafter, a warrantless probable cause search of the vehicle disclosed controlled substances. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officers detained the vehicle's occupants longer than lawfully permitted to accommodate the drug dog sniff. The district court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the district court's findings, and those findings supported the district court's legal conclusions. View "State v. Lutz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of criminal conduct, including attempted capital murder, holding that a single error occurred in the proceedings below, and the error was harmless.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no support for Defendant's claims that the district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations and imposed consecutive sentences as "the product of judicial vindictiveness"; (2) the prosecutor made an incorrect statement during closing arguments, but the State met its burden to demonstrate that the error did not affect the trial's outcome beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the district court did not err in its response to a jury question. View "State v. Bowser" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals panel that used a harmless error analysis to save a district court's denial of Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea even though the panel concluded that the court applied the wrong legal standard, holding the court of appeals erred in engaging in a harmless error analysis under the circumstances.Defendant pleaded no contest to robbery and aggravated assault. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion. The panel concluded that the district court erred in using the Strickland test rather than the "lackluster advocacy" standard specified in State v. Aguilar, 231 P.3d 563 (Kan. 2010) but that the error was harmless. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the analysis of the court of appeals was incorrect. View "State v. Herring" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that, on judicial review under Kan. Stat. Ann. 8-1020(p) of a hearing officer's order suspending a driver's license, a court may consider any constitutional issue, including the lawfulness of the law enforcement encounter, and that, under section 8-1020(o)-(q), a court may set aside a driver's license suspension order if the driver meets the burden of establishing that the encounter was unlawful.Defendant was arrested for driving under the influence. When Defendant refused to provide a breath sample his driver's license was suspended. A district court judge set aside the suspension based on his determination that the law enforcement encounter was unlawful. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the stop was unlawful and violated Defendant's constitutional rights, and therefore, the district court did not err in setting aside the suspension of Defendant's driver's license. View "Jarvis v. Kansas Department of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's convictions on two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, holding that Defendant received deficient representation pretrial and at trial and that Defendant was prejudiced as a result.After Defendant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal he filed a Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion alleging that trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court of appeals concluded that Defendant's counsel had not met the constitutional standard for effective assistance of trial or appellate counsel and that Defendant was prejudiced as a result. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that trial counsel's decision to drop a pretrial challenge to the admissibility of Defendant's incriminating statements and counsel's failure to object to certain evidence being admitted at trial constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. View "Khalil-Alsalaami v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq., holding that the district court's notice to Defendant concerning his obligation to register did not violate Defendant's right to due process.Defendant was convicted and sentenced for aggravated burglary. The district court ordered Defendant to register as a violent offender under KORA. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court's failure to notify him of his registration obligation at the time of his plea and conviction violated his right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the notice provided to Defendant was constitutionally sound and that Defendant was not deprived of his opportunity to be heard. View "State v. Juarez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's conviction of one count of criminal threat under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5415(a)(1), holding that there was no basis for this Court to discern whether the jury concluded the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant committed criminal threat intentionally.On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court erred by rejecting defense counsel's proposed jury instruction on workplace defense. The State sought review. While review was pending, the Supreme Court held in State v. Johnson, 450 P.3d 790 (Kan. 2019), that the provision in section 21-5415(a)(1) allowing conviction if a threat of violence was made in reckless disregard for causing fear was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment as right for the wrong reason, holding that, based on Johnson, Defendant's conviction cannot stand. View "State v. Lindemuth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the district court committed harmless error in failing to suppress a blood test result, holding that the court of appeals erred when it concluded that Defendant could be guilty of an alternative charge.Following a bench trial on stipulated facts, the district court convicted Defendant of driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.08 as measured within three hours of driving. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that, even though the district court should have suppressed the blood test result, the stipulation included facts that supported a conviction on an alternative charge that was not a part of the district court's judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred by not considering and applying the conditions that limited the binding nature of the parties' stipulation. View "State v. Braun" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, holding that there was a single instance of prosecutorial error during closing argument, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court judge did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements made during his police interview; (2) the district judge did not err by refusing to give voluntary intoxication instructions; (3) the prosecutor committed error in closing argument, but the error was harmless; and (4) because this Court identified only one error, the cumulative error doctrine did not apply. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) even if a challenged remark by the prosecutor constituted prosecutorial error, there was no possibility that it contributed to the verdict; (2) the district court did not err in admitting cell tower maps and accompanying testimony; (3) the district court did not commit clear error in failing sua sponte to instruct the jury on intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense of premeditated first-degree murder; and (4) the district court's failure to give any lesser included instructions did not violate Defendant's due process rights. View "State v. Timley" on Justia Law