 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Allen, No. 93,940,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of indecent liberties with a child. Sentence to aggravated term under provisions of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4704(j)(1) was permissible without a jury's finding because defendant had previously been adjudicated, as a juvenile, of aggravated incest, which was a sexually motivated offense, as defined by Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3717.
|
|||||
| State v. Buckner, No. 94,795,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where defendant was accused of manufacturing methamphetamine on certain dates, a trial court erred by failing to give an unanimity instruction under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 22-3421, 22-3423(1)(d) because defendant gave more than just a general denial based on the fact that he presented alibi evidence for each specific date alleged.
|
|||||
| State v. Fisher, No. 89,300,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug case, a search warrant was supported by probable cause, Fourth Amendment, because an officer noted a smell of ether, he saw bottles that likely contained methanol, a citizen noticed a peculiar smell in burning trash, and the officer saw vehicles coming and going and staying for a short time at defendant's residence.
|
|||||
| State v. Flores, No. 93,973,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled nolo contendere to felony murder and attempted voluntary manslaughter, Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-1636(i) (1993) did not preclude the imposition of an adult sentence, as the State obtained a conviction for felony murder, vindicating the prosecutor's charging decision.
|
|||||
| State v. Landis, No. 95,466,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant was convicted of marijuana possession and other crimes per Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 65-4163(b), 65-4160, 79-5208, 65-4152, his suppression motion was improperly denied as, submitting the warrant affidavit, officers omitted that the affiant's story changed before identifying him and his house, and they did not corroborate his involvement.
|
|||||
| State v. Moore, No. 93,386,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of a hidden compartment in defendant's car, coupled with the smell of fabric softener constituted probable cause, Fourth Amendment, to allow an officer to extend a consensual search; and therefore, the officer properly pulled molding from around the edge of the door where he observed the fabric softener-wrapped package of marijuana.
|
|||||
| State v. Morton, No. 94,815,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Double jeopardy did not prevent defendant's retrial on a murder charge because there was no indication the prosecutor intended to provoke defendant into moving for mistrial by suggesting that premeditation could take place in an instant; more than misconduct was required in order to bar retrial, the prosecutor had to intend to provoke a mistrial.
|
|||||
| State v. Shopteese, No. 92,512,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant moved to withdraw his no contest pleas claiming they were involuntary, in violation of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3210(a), due to incompetence under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3301(1) from his marginal I.Q. and unmedicated mental illness; the motion was properly denied as he did not report problems from lack of medicine, and visions had no affect.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, No. 95,890,
SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant claimed that his sentence was illegal because the district court lacked jurisdiction. Defendant was 17 years old at the time he committed two crimes; however, the district court had jurisdiction because defendant was excluded from the definition of juvenile offender pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1602(b)(3),1 (Supp. 1995).
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, Nos. 95,155, 95,156, 95,157,
COURT OF APPEALS OF KANSAS, March 16, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to multiple felonies, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant's arguments on direct appeal from his guilty plea, pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3602(a), as defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
