Abstract
In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who was charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender with aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but the district court denied it. He was found guilty after a bench trial and appealed, arguing he had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the appeal on this sole issue.
Abstract
In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who was charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender with aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but the district court denied it. He was found guilty after a bench trial and appealed, arguing he had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the appeal on this sole issue.
Summary
The legal case In re L.M., case number 96,197, decided in 2008, concerned a 16-year-old individual identified as L.M. This juvenile was charged in Kansas with two offenses: aggravated sexual battery and the possession of alcohol as a minor. L.M. sought a trial by jury, but this request was denied by the district court. Following a trial conducted by a judge, L.M. was found guilty. An appeal was subsequently filed, asserting that the denial of a jury trial constituted a violation of L.M.'s rights. The Kansas Supreme Court's review of the case focused exclusively on this specific legal question.
Abstract
In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who was charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender with aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but the district court denied it. He was found guilty after a bench trial and appealed, arguing he had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the appeal on this sole issue.
Summary
The case In re L.M., No. 96,197 (2008), involved L.M., a 16-year-old individual charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender. The charges against L.M. included aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but this request was denied by the district court. After a bench trial, which is conducted without a jury, L.M. was found guilty. An appeal was then filed, with the core argument being that L.M. had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered this appeal, focusing solely on the issue of the right to a jury trial in such circumstances.
Abstract
In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who was charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender with aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but the district court denied it. He was found guilty after a bench trial and appealed, arguing he had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the appeal on this sole issue.
Summary
The case of In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who faced charges in Kansas as a juvenile offender. The charges included aggravated sexual battery and being a minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial; however, the district court denied this request. Following a bench trial, he was found guilty. L.M. then appealed the decision, asserting a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the appeal, focusing solely on this question of a right to a jury trial.
Abstract
In re L.M. No. 96,197 (2008) involved a 16-year-old boy, L.M., who was charged in Kansas as a juvenile offender with aggravated sexual battery and minor in possession of alcohol. L.M. requested a jury trial, but the district court denied it. He was found guilty after a bench trial and appealed, arguing he had a right to a jury trial. The Kansas Supreme Court considered the appeal on this sole issue.
Summary
A court case from 2008 was about a 16-year-old boy named L.M. In Kansas, L.M. was accused of a serious sexual crime and having alcohol when he was too young. He asked for a trial where a jury would decide, but the court said no. A judge decided L.M. was guilty without a jury. L.M. then asked a higher court to look at his case. He said he should have had a jury trial. The highest court in Kansas only looked at this one question.