Latest 4 Cases: State v. Bradford (Criminal Law), State v. Gibson (Criminal Law), State v. Kornelson (Criminal Law)

Reflections on the Movement in California to Repeal the State’s Ban on Affirmative Action

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR

Illinois law dean and professor Vikram David Amar offers three observations on a measure recently approved by the California legislature that would, if approved by the voters, repeal Proposition 209, the voter initiative that has prohibited affirmative action by the state and its subdivisions since its passage in 1996. Amar praises the California legislature for seeking to repeal Prop 209 and for seeking to do so using the proper procedures, and he suggests that if Prop 209 is repealed, legal rationales for the use of race should be based not only on the value of diversity (as they have been for some time now), but also on the need to remedy past wrongs against Black Americans.

Read More

State v. Bradford

Docket: 120683

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's grid-sentence, holding that, under two of this Court's recent opinions, Defendant failed to establish that the district court imposed an illegal sentence for purposes of Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-3504. In 1999, Defendant was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and two counts of felony theft. The district court imposed a hard forty sentence for Defendant's capital murder conviction, an off-grid crime, and to upward departure sentences on the grid crimes. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's upward durational departure sentences for his grid crimes under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and resentenced Defendant. Defendant later filed a motion to correct na illegal sentence challenging his hard forty sentence. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that State v. Murdock, 439 P.3d 307 (Kan. 2019), and State v. Weber, 442 P.3d 1044 (Kan. 2019), foreclosed Defendant's challenge.

State v. Gibson

Docket: 119993

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of child abuse and felony murder with the underlying felony of child abuse but vacated the imposition of lifetime postrelease supervision, holding that the trial court did not err in convicting Defendant but erred in imposing lifetime postrelease supervision. Specifically, the Court held (1) the evidence provided sufficient proof to show that Defendant's action was knowingly done and cruel as required by Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5602(a)(3); (2) the court did not err in instructing the jury "If you have no reasonable doubt as to the truth of each of the claims required to be proved by the State, you should find the defendant guilty"; and (3) the court improperly ordered lifetime postrelease supervision.

State v. Kornelson

Docket: 118091

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for driving under the influence and illegal transportation of liquor, holding that "manifest necessity" is the correct measure for declaring a jury deadlocked under the United States Supreme Court's double jeopardy caselaw when the defendant does not object or consent to the mistrial. Defendant's first trial ended in a mistrial without Defendant's consent because of a jury deadlock. After a second jury trial, Defendant was convicted. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) his second trial violated his constitutional right against double jeopardy, and (2) the jury instruction on the State's burden of proof improperly discouraged the jury from exercising its nullification power. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when a trial sua sponte declares a jury deadlocked and orders a mistrial when the defendant does not object or consent to the mistrial, retrial should be permitted only when there was a manifest necessity for the court's action, and the holding in State v. Graham, 83 P.3d 143 (Kan. 2004), to the contrary is overruled; (2) the district court properly declared a mistrial under the circumstances of this case based on the manifest necessity standard; and (3) Defendant's jury instruction challenge is rejected.

Hammond v. San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515

Docket: 118698

Opinion Date: July 2, 2020

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

In this personal injury case arising from a bar fight at the San Lo Leyte VFW Post #7515 in Clyde, Kansas (VFW) between Plaintiff and a third party patron of the bar the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the VFW, holding that there were still necessary questions of fact left unanswered, and therefore, summary judgment was not appropriate. On appeal, Plaintiff argued that despite the injury occurring off VFW-owned premises, the VFW's duty to protect Plaintiff from the assault, and the breach of that duty, arose while Plaintiff and the third party were still inside the bar. The court of appeals agreed, concluding that negligence could have arisen when all parties were on the VFW's premises. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that questions of fact existed regarding the foreseeability of Plaintiff's injury and whether a breach of duty occurred, precluding summary judgment.