Kansas Supreme Court
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IN RE HARRY LOUIS NAJIM
NO. 116,943—SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
FACTS: Najim's license to practice law in Kansas was indefinitely suspended in December 2017. Najim petitioned for reinstatement in November 2018. After an investigation, Najim appeared at a hearing and the panel recommended that Najim's license be reinstated.
HELD: After a thorough review of the hearing panel's report, the court accepts the findings and finds that Najim's license should be reinstated.
ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IN RE DAVID E. HERRON,II
NO. 119,726—SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
FACTS: In May 2019, Herron's license to practice law in Kansas was suspended for 60 days. After that time elapsed, Herron filed a petition for reinstatement. The office of the Disciplinary Administrator had no objection to reinstatement
HELD: Seeing no objection, the court considered and granted Herron's petition for reinstatement.
Kansas Court of Appeals
state v. justice-puett
riley county district court—reversed and sentence vacated
no. 119,697—september 13, 2019
FACTS: Jurtice-Puett appealed her jury conviction for possession of a theft detection device remover. Citing the lack of evidence identifying what she had used to cut a security detection device from two phones, she argued in part that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5805(c) only prohibits possession of either a tool or device specifically designed to remove or defeat theft detection devices on merchandise.
ISSUE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5805(c)
HELD: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5805(c) is interpreted as issue of first impression. The statute is plain and unambiguous. State’s argument that statute prohibits possessing any kind of tool or device capable of removing a theft detection device is rejected. Instead, when words of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5805(c) are given their ordinary meaning, and read in context with other subsections, it is clear that "tool" and "device" are both modified by the descriptive phrase "designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device." Thus the phrase "designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device" requires an intentional design particular to, and designed for the purpose of, the removal of any theft detection device. Viewing evidence in light most favorable to the State, no rational fact-finder could have found Justice-Puett guilty of possessing a tool or device designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device. Without evidence of what tool she may have used, the burden of proof regarding the intentional design element is not met. Defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted.
STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5805(c)