Latest 3 Cases: State v. Colson (Criminal Law), State v. Farmer (Criminal Law), State v. Stoll (Criminal Law)

The Physician’s Conundrum: Assigning Moral Responsibility for Medical Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

CHARLES E. BINKLEY

Charles E. Binkley, director of bioethics at Santa Clara University’s Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, describes some critical ethical issues raised by the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) systems for clinical decision support in medicine. Dr. Binkley calls for resolution of these issues before these emerging technologies are widely implemented.

Read More

State v. Colson

Docket: 120946

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for felony murder, intentional second-degree murder, felony theft of a firearm, felony theft of a vehicle, and burglary, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. On appeal, Defendant raised three arguments attacking the sufficiency of the State's evidence supporting his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State was sufficient to support the convictions, and the jury was not required to stack inferences in convicting Defendant; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for a lesser included offense instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

State v. Farmer

Docket: 121534

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: Wall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence for first-degree felony murder and several other offenses, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's departure motion and that Defendant abandoned his claim regarding proper notice under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), Kan. Stat. Ann. 22-4901 et seq. After Defendant was originally sentenced, he filed two motions to correct an illegal sentence. The district court eventually resentenced Defendant but denied his motion for a departure sentence. Defendant appealed from his resentencing, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred in failing to notify him of his duty to register under KORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for a departure sentence; and (2) Defendant failed to preserve his claim of defective notice under KORA.

State v. Stoll

Docket: 117081

Opinion Date: February 5, 2021

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for failure to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), holding that the court of appeals panel erred when it declined to review Defendant's claim challenging her duty to register under the invited error doctrine, but the argument failed on the merits. During trial, Defendant filed a motion arguing that the State would need to prove she had a culpable mental state when she failed to register. The district court denied the motion, concluding that failure to register was a strict liability crime. The court of appeals affirmed, rejecting Defendant's defense of substantial compliance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) substantial compliance is not an available defense to a charge of failure to register under KORA; (2) the unavailability of a substantial compliance defense did not violate Defendant's due process rights; (3) Defendant had standing to challenge KORA on its face as unconstitutional; and (4) while the court of appeals erred when it held that Defendant could not challenge the sufficiency of the State's evidence because she invited any error, Defendant's claim still failed on the merits.