In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that Gleason’s conviction in Reno County District Court for battery against a state corrections officer must be reversed because of prosecutorial errors, both on their own and in conjunction with an erroneous jury instruction. The Court held there was only a single prosecutorial error and it was harmless.
Gleason also argued on appeal that the erroneous jury instruction nevertheless violated his “inviolate” jury rights under Section 5 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. The Court held that the Section 5 jury right preserves the same protections that existed in common law when the Kansas Constitution was adopted in 1859. Thus, after a historical analysis, the Court determined that Section 5 jury claims are analyzed under a presumed prejudice standard. Such errors require reversal unless the State can show there is no prejudice. Absent prejudice, there is no violation of the Section 5 jury right. The State made such a showing here, so Gleason’s Section 5 jury rights were not violated. Gleason’s conviction was thus affirmed.
Justices Melissa Standridge and Eric Rosen concurred in the judgment only.
Beck was driving on Interstate 70 in Geary County when he was pulled over by a law enforcement officer. Beck was committing no driving infractions, but a car dealer’s frame around his license plate partially obstructed the state name on the plate. According to the officer, he was not able to easily read the state name, putting the plate in violation of K.S.A. 8-133, which requires that license plates be maintained “in a condition to be clearly legible.” Because Beck exhibited suspicious behavior, the officer and a backup unit searched his car and found methamphetamine. Beck attempted to drive away during the search but was subdued and arrested. He was charged with one count of possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute, one count of having no drug tax stamp, and one count of interfering with law enforcement.
Before trial, Beck moved to suppress consideration of the methamphetamine found in the search, claiming the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him and search his car. The Geary County District Court denied the motion and allowed the evidence to go to a jury. The jury found Beck guilty of all three counts. Beck appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted review.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Eric Rosen, the Court reversed the district court ruling that denied Beck’s motion to suppress and reversed the convictions based on the evidence obtained from the search of his car. The Court examined the relevant statutes and concluded that Kansas does not require the state name be printed on license plates in an easily readable fashion. For this reason, obstructing or partially obstructing the state name does not give law enforcement reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. The Court further discussed how distance from a vehicle and environmental conditions may affect whether a license plate is clearly legible. The Court directed district courts to apply an objective standard to decide whether a reasonable officer would have reasonable suspicion that, under the totality of the circumstances, the license plate was not maintained in a condition to be clearly legible. The Court remanded the case to the district court for a new hearing consistent with the analysis in the opinion.
Grant County District Court found Arredondo guilty of one count of felony child abuse and one count of felony murder in the death of the 3-year-old son of Arredondo’s domestic partner. The child became unconscious and stopped breathing while under Arredondo’s care. Emergency care personnel were unable to revive the child, and he died in a hospital. Medical examiners determined the child had suffered from traumatic blows to the head and showed signs of other traumatic injuries. Arredondo told law enforcement and others the child had choked on a meal Arredondo served him, but evidence from the home indicated the child had not been eating around the time he stopped breathing. Arredondo appealed his conviction.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice Eric Rosen, the Supreme Court affirmed Arredondo’s conviction. The Court determined that law enforcement did not impinge on Arredondo’s constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment during any of the three times they entered the residence. This was primarily because Arredondo voluntarily consented to the searches of his home. The Court further held that Arredondo did not preserve at trial a challenge to the admissibility of statements he made to law enforcement, which meant he could not challenge those statements on appeal.
Justice Evelyn Wilson did not participate in the decision.
Haynes, who is serving a life sentence for first-degree murder, filed a postconviction motion seeking access to arrest and search warrants and their supporting affidavits from his criminal case. The Sedgwick County District Court granted him access to the arrest warrant affidavit but denied his request for any search warrant affidavits. In a unanimous decision written by Justice K.J. Wall, the Supreme Court partially reversed the district court’s ruling. The Court held that K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and K.S.A. 22-2502(d) give defendants a personal right to obtain affidavits supporting both arrest and search warrants. But the statutes do not provide access to the warrants themselves, perhaps because those warrants are usually public documents once law enforcement executes them. The Court therefore affirmed the district court’s ruling on the arrest warrant affidavit but reversed its denial of any search warrant affidavits because K.S.A. 22-2502(d) requires disclosure of those materials. The case was remanded with instructions to make those materials available upon payment of the necessary production fees.
In a unanimous decision written by Justice K.J. Wall, the Supreme Court affirmed the consecutive hard 50 life sentences imposed on Mitchell for the premeditated murders of his mother and stepfather. On appeal, Mitchell argued the Bourbon County District Court should have imposed hard 25 sentences based on his severe mental illness, troubled upbringing, and accepting responsibility. He also argued the sentences should run concurrently rather than consecutively. The Court held that while the district court acknowledged Mitchell’s mitigating evidence, it reasonably concluded the factors did not constitute “substantial and compelling reasons” to deviate from hard 50 sentences given the premeditated, brutal nature of the crimes. The Court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because Mitchell killed two people.
Visit our Search Decisions page for published and unpublished decisions from the Kansas Supreme Court and the Kansas Court of Appeals.
