Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Register
Appellate Court Digests
Blog Home All Blogs
@@WEBSITE_ID@@

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: criminal procedure  statutes  Constitutional Law  Attorney Discipline  evidence  Sedgwick District Court  Criminal Law  Sedgwick District  motions  Appeals  jury instructions  Johnson District Court  sentencing  Shawnee District Court  Wyandotte District  jurisdiction  Shawnee District  juries  Sentences  Fourth Amendment  habeas corpus  Johnson District  Reno District  Saline District  Sedgwick  8807  appellate procedure  Reno District Court  search and seizure  contracts 

August 7, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, August 10, 2020

Kansas Supreme Court

criminal

constitutional law—criminal procedure—
evidence—fourth amendment
state v. ellis
lyon district court—reversed and remanded;
court of appeals—affirmed
No. 120,046—august 7, 2020

FACTS: Police were called to check on welfare of a person (Ellis) in convenience store bathroom. Ellis stated she was okay and having stomach trouble. Police asked for identification, held Ellis’ drivers license to run warrant check, arrested her on an outstanding probation violation warrant, and found drugs and paraphernalia in subsequent search. State charged Ellis with drug offenses. She filed motion to suppress, arguing the seizure and subsequent search exceeded the scope of the encounter. State argued the attenuation doctrine set out in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), legitimized the search. District court denied the motion and convicted Ellis in bench trial. Ellis appealed. Court of Appeals reversed, holding the investigatory detention exceeded the scope of the welfare check and the evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed. 57 Kan.App.2d 477 (2019). State’s petition for review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Scope of welfare check; (2) attenuation doctrine

HELD: Under facts of the case, the officer lawfully engaged with Ellis and requested her identification. But police may not lawfully extend a welfare check by running a warrant check on an individual who is the subject of the check unless some other circumstances support prolonging the check and converting it into a detention. Here, the officer had no reasonable suspicion that Ellis was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. Checking if Ellis “had some pick up order” exceeded the scope of the safety check. Ths constituted an unlawful seizure and consequent search.

              Application of the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is inappropriate on facts in this case. Factors in Strieff are applied finding all weigh against admissibility of the drug evidence under the attenuation doctrine: (1) a very short passage of time; (2) under Kansas caselaw the discovery of an outstanding warrant was not an attenuating factor in this case; and (3) the clarity of Kansas law forbidding the officer’s illegal conduct supports a finding of flagrant official misconduct. District court’s judgment is reversed and evidence seized subsequent to the initial conduct must be suppressed. Remanded for further proceedings.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.)(joined by Luckert, C.J. and Wilson, J.): Concurs with the result but majority appears to back away from the more stringent requirements in Strief. Under Strief as outlined in State v. Tatro, 310 Kan. 263 (2019), when a preexisting valid warrant is discovered, the only question remaining is whether the unconstitutional conduct was purposeful or flagrant. Agrees with majority’s finding of flagrant misconduct, but would limit the analysis in these circumstances to that question only.  

STATUTES: None

constitutional law—criminal procedure—evidence—
jury instructions—prosecutors
state v. timley
shawnee district court—affirmed
No. 120,414—august 7, 2020

FACTS: Timley convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. During trial, Timley’s cellphone records including the cell towers accessed were admitted into evidence without objection, and a detective using Per Call Measurement Data (PCMD) from Sprint testified about the relative position of Timley’s phone throughout the day of the shooting. On appeal Timley claimed: (1) prosecutor erred during opening and closing arguments by making statements concerning the location of Timley’s phone at the time of the shooting; (2) district court erred in admitting the detective’s cell tower maps and accompanying testimony because detective lacked necessary expertise; (3) district court committed clear error by failing to instruct jury on intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense; (4) district court’s failure to instruct jury on lesser included offenses violated Timley’s right to due process; and (5) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Prosecutorial error; (2) admission of evidence; (3)jury instruction on lesser included offense; (4) due process; (5) cumulative error

HELD: Prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument did not stretch the PCMD distance from a cell tower to Timley’s phone into a certitude, and thereby did not exceed the wide latitude extended to prosecutors. Prosecutor’s opening statement, by postulating that Timley’s phone was “exactly” at the site of the shooting, barely avoided error, but even if error, no possibility the prosecutor’s remark contributed to the verdict.

            Under facts of the case, no expert witness was needed. The detective’s exhibits and accompanying testimony did not require any specialized knowledge or expertise beyond that which he was demonstrated to possess.

            District court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct jury on lesser included offense of intentional second-degree murder, but under facts of the case, no clear error is found.

              In noncapital case, a district court’s failure to sua sponte instruct on lesser included offense does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to due process. Based on State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 (2020), and State v. Love, 305 Kan. 716 (2017), no due process violation found in district court’s failure to issue a lesser included offense instruction sua sponte.

            Cumulative error claim is rejected. Only one harmless error found in district court’s failure to sua sponte instruct jury on a lesser included offense. Even if prosecutor’s opening statement was harmless error, it bore no relation to the instructional error.

CONCURRENCE (Biles, J.)(joined by Rosen, J. and Ward, S.J.): Disagrees that prosecutor’s opening statement was fair comment. Would hold it was error for prosecutor in opening statement to tell jury the cell tower data would reflect Timley’s exact location, but agrees the error is harmless for reasons stated by majority.

STATUTES: None

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

criminal law—insurance—jurisdiction—statutes
state v. rozell
wyandotte district court—affirmed
No. 121,094—August 7, 2020

FACTS: Rozell (Missouri resident) and Lopez (Wyandotte County, Kansas, resident) were in a car accident in Missouri. Rozell submitted bodily injury claim on Lopez’ State Farm insurance to a claims representative in Tennessee who discovered the Missouri hospital bill Lopez submitted had been altered to show a post-accident date. State charged Rozell in Wyandotte County with one count of making false information and one count of fraudulent insurance act, listing State Farm as the victim of Rozell’s crimes. District court granted Rozell’s motion to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction. State appealed, arguing proximate result jurisdiction existed under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5106(b)(3) for a person who attempts to defraud a Kansas insurance policy issued to a Kansas resident, and Wyandotte County was the proper venue.

ISSUE: Proximate result jurisdiction

HELD: District court’s dismissal of the charges for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed. Kansas does not have proximate result jurisdiction to prosecute Rozell for making false information, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5824(a), or committing a fraudulent insurance act, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 40-2,118(a), just because he allegedly intended to defraud a Kansas insurance policy. The law related to proximate result jurisdiction is reviewed. When determining proximate result jurisdiction, Kansas courts may consider the negative consequences of a person’s out-of-state criminal acts within Kansas only if the statutory language of that person’s charged crime considered such negative consequences. Here, the State failed to analyze the elements of the charged crimes. Neither the making false information statute, nor the fraudulent insurance act statute consider the negative consequences of a person’s out-of-state criminal acts in the language of the statute.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-40-2,118(a), -5106, -5106(b), -5106(b)(3), -5824(a), -5830(a)(2); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 40-2,118(a), -2,118(e), -5106(b),-5106(b)(3), -5824(a) ; K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2)

Tags:  Constitutional Law  criminal procedure  evidence  Fourth Amendment  insurance  jurisdiction  jury instructions  Lyon District Court  prosecutors  Shawnee District Court  statutes  Wyandotte District Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

February 7, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, February 10, 2020

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

SEXUALLY VIOLENT PREDATORS
IN RE CARE AND TREATMENT OF JONES
WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 120,309—FEBRUARY 7, 2020

FACTS: Jones was convicted of rape in 2005. As the end of his prison sentence neared, the State filed a motion seeking to have Jones civilly committed under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act. As part of its petition, the State designated Dr. Sutherland as an expert witness. In that capacity, Dr. Sutherland recommended civil commitment because Jones presented an unmanageable risk of reoffending. Based on this evidence, the district court found probable cause to believe that Jones was a sexually violent predator. Larned State Hospital hired Dr. Flesher as an expert witness for Jones. It was Dr. Flesher's opinion that Jones did not meet the criteria for designation as a sexually violent predator. Given the split between the experts, the district court elected to hear testimony from Dr. Flesher. After hearing that testimony, the district court ordered Jones released and dismissed the case. The State appeals.

ISSUE: (1) Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment to Jones

HELD: There was no procedural or statutory bar that would prevent the district court from considering a motion for summary judgment after the probable cause determination was made. In this case, summary judgment was improper because there was evidence to support the State's claim that Jones should be civilly committed. Where there were opposing expert witness positions, summary judgment was inappropriate.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 59-29a04(a), -29a04(g), 60-212, -212(d), -256

 

TORT CLAIMS ACT
HENDERSON V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONTGOMERY DISTRICT COURT - AFFIRMED
NO. 120,369 – FEBRUARY 7, 2020

FACTS: Henderson picked up Garcia, who was hitchhiking. Unbeknownst to Henderson, Garcia was fleeing authorities after shooting a police officer in Oklahoma. Once law enforcement located Garcia, a chase ensued. Henderson attempted to let Garcia out of his truck, but Garcia exited shooting. Deputy Grimes returned fire, and Henderson was hit in the neck. He sued both Deputy Grimes and the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners for negligence. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming that the public duty doctrine prevented any liability for either defendant. They also claimed that they were entitled to immunity under the discretionary function exemption to the Kansas Tort Claims Act. The district court granted summary judgment on both claims, and Henderson appeals.

ISSUES: (1) Application of the public duty doctrine; (2) application of the discretionary function exception to the KTCA

HELD: Instead of determining whether a special duty applied, the court assumes without deciding that a duty existed. The discretionary function exception is still good law. Guidelines for law enforcement on how to handle a felony high-risk stop are not mandatory and are instead best practice suggestions. All of the decisions made by Deputy Grimes were discretionary. For that reason, the discretionary function exception applies to excuse him and the Board from liability.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 75-6103(a), -6104, -6104(e), -6104(n)

 

criminal 

constitutional law—criminal law—evidence—fourth amendment—statutes
state v. arceo-rojas
geary district court—affirmed
no. 119,266—february 7, 2020

FACTS: Officer stopped Arceo-Rojas for driving too long in left lane and unsafe lane change, and after completing the traffic stop detained Arceo-Rojas until a K-9 unit arrived. K-9 alert led to discovery of 54 pounds of individually packaged bags of marijuana. Arceo-Rojas arrested and charged with drug offenses. She filed motion to suppress, arguing the officer had no reasonable suspicion to stop her and later detain her for purpose of a drug sniff.  District court denied the motion, finding the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion that Arceo-Rojas was staying in left lane in violation of K.S.A. 8-1522, and that she failed to maintain a safe distance between her car and the car behind her when she changed lanes. Arceo-Rojas convicted in bench trial as charged. She appealed, alleging district court erred in denying motion to suppress.

ISSUES: (1) Traffic stop, (2) extension of traffic stop

HELD: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522(c) is interpreted. “Overtaking and passing another vehicle” phrase in the statute shows a legislative intent to keep multilane roads and highways open for passing. Under facts in this case, officer had reasonable suspicion that Arceo-Rojas was driving in left lane without meeting any of the four statutory exceptions. Accordingly, the traffic stop was justified and no need to address whether officer also had reasonable suspicion that Arceo-Rojas committed an unsafe lane change in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522(a), or whether officer made a “reasonable mistake” of law when he stopped Arceo-Rojas based on holding in Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014).

       Arceo-Rojas’ comparison to State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727 (1998), is not persuasive. Under totality of the circumstances  (1) Arceo-Rojas’ implausible and inconsistent travel plans, (2) use of a strong but dissipating masking odor consistent with being sprayed as officer stopped the car, (3) vehicle rented in the name of a third party, and (4) a large black duffel bag in back of the car—gave officer grounds for reasonable suspicion for both the initial traffic stop and extending the stop. District court’s denial of the motion to suppress is affirmed.

DISSENT (Arnold-Burger, C.J.): Would reverse district court’s ruling and suppress all evidence obtained after the traffic stop, at a minimum, and certainly after Arceo-Rojas was given a warning ticket and told she was free to leave. Initial stop was unlawful. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522(c) does not state how long a person may drive in the left lane before committing a violation, and a person of reasonable caution would not interpret Arceo-Rojas’ driving as a violation of the statute. Also, officer had no reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Arceo-Rojas while waiting for drug dog to arrive and circle the car. The four factors cited by district court and the majority are criticized, finding none support a finding of reasonable suspicion either together or separately. Case highlights the problem with the introduction of and the overreliance on profiles of drug courier activity. Traits of a drug-courier profile as asserted by federal agents are listed, and absence in this case is noted of factors indicated by Kansas law enforcement officers as linked to highway drug trafficking. Agrees with Justice Rosen’s concurrence in State v. Schooler, 308 Kan. 333 (2018), on danger of “using the promise of freedom” to circumvent a driver’s constitutional rights.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-1522, -1522(a), -1522(c), -1522(c)(1); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1522(c); K.S.A. 60-404

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—statutes
state v. terning
chautauqua district court—affirmed
no. 119,904—february 7, 2020

FACTS: Terning entered 2008 no contest plea to aggravated kidnapping and rape. Consecutive 165-month prison terms imposed, plus 36 months postrelease supervision. Kansas appellate courts summarily dismissed Terning’s direct appeal, but mandate not issued until May 2017. That same month Terning filed motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he should have received lifetime postrelease supervision. State filed similar motion. Five months later Terning filed motion to withdraw his plea, arguing his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was never informed of lifetime post-release supervision. District court denied motion to withdraw plea. Terning appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Withdrawal of guilty plea after sentencing

HELD: Under circumstances in this case, district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Terning failed to demonstrate he would not have entered his plea if he had been informed that he would be subject to lifetime postrelease supervision. Even though district court did not strictly comply with K.S.A. 22-3210 at the plea hearing, record supports district court’s finding that Terning’s plea was knowingly and understandingly made. Different conclusion reached in State v. Metzger,  (Kan.App. 2017)(unpublished opinion), rev. denied 307 Kan. 992 (2018), is distinguished. Even though Terning was unaware of lifetime postrelease supervision period when he pleaded, he was informed that he potentially faced a period of incarceration longer than his natural life, regardless of any postrelease term. And by pleading no contest to both charges he avoided an upward departure that could have resulted in an even longer prison sentence.

DISSENT (Standridge, J.): Would hold the district court erred as a matter of law in its legal conclusion that Terning failed to show manifest injustice to withdraw his plea. District court failed to advise Terning of the maximum penalty upon his no contest plea, which is a clear statutory violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(a)(2) and a due process constitutional violation. Strongly disagrees with majority’s adoption of new analytical framework which provides that due process is not violated by failure to advise a criminal defendant of applicability of a lifetime postrelease supervisory period if the combined prison sentences assigned to the defendant are not meaningfully different from life in prison. Metzger sets forth a better analytical framework. Application of factors in State v. Edgar, 281 Kan. 30 (2006), and State v. Moses, 280 Kan. 939 (2006), to facts in this case tips balance in favor of finding manifest injustice under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(d)(2).

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3210(a)(2), -3210(d), -3210(d)(1), -3210(d)(2), -3717(d)(1)(G); K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 75-5217(c)-(d); K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(G), -3717(d)(2)(A); K.S.A. 21-4720(b)(2), -4720(b)(5), 22-3210, -3504

 

Tags:  Constitutional Law  Criminal Law  Criminal Procedure  Evidence  Fourth Amendment  Montgomery District Court  Montgomery District Court.  Motions Chautauqua District Court  sexually violent predators  Statutes  Tort Claims Act  Wyandotte District Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

January 31, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Kansas Supreme Court

criminal

constitutional law—appeals—appellate procedure—
criminal procedure—jurisdiction—statutes
state v. smith
sedgwick district court—court of appeals dismissal of the appeal is affirmed
no. 115,321—january 31, 2020

FACTS: In two separate cases, Smith pleaded guilty to refusing to submit to a test to determine presence of alcohol or drugs. Court of appeals consolidated Smith’s direct appeals. Relying on State v. Ryce, 303 Kan 899 (2016), decided while the consolidated appeal was pending, Smith argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to render the criminal judgments. In response, State argued the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider a direct appeal from a guilty plea. Court of appeals dismissed Smith’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without considering the merits of his Ryce claim.

ISSUE: (1) Appellate jurisdiction

HELD: Court of appeals did not err when it dismissed Smith’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. K.S.A. 22-3602 is interpreted to resolve ambiguity, finding K.S.A. 22-3602(a) explicitly provides that a defendant cannot appeal a conviction after pleading guilty. K.S.A. 22-3504 allows appeals of sentences, not convictions, and federal caselaw allowing for direct appeals after guilty pleas in certain situations is inapplicable here. Smith’s convictions may be challenged in other ways, so notions of justice do not demand appellate jurisdiction. If he had still been serving his sentence, Smith could have filed a motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 to seek relief. He can also file a motion to withdraw his plea, and if denied, court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from that denial.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3601(a), -3602(a), 60-1507(a); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025; K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 8-1025; K.S.A. 20-3001, 22-3210(d)(2), -3504, -3601, -3602, -3602(a), 60-1507, -1507; K.S.A. 62-1701 (Corrick)

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

appellate procedure—constitutional law—evidence—fourth amendment
state v. mckenna 
reno district court—affirmed
no. 119,431—january 31, 2020

FACTS: Officer checked on a sleeping or unconscious woman (McKenna) in driver’s seat in a parked car, and then arrested her on an outstanding warrant which was discovered once officer obtained McKenna’s name and ran a warrants check. McKenna was charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of a stimulant, based on evidence found in her clothing during booking. McKenna filed motion to suppress, arguing the officer unconstitutionally detained her without reasonable suspicion she was committing a crime. District court denied the motion, finding officer’s actions were justified as a welfare check. McKenna appealed the denial of her motion to suppress. Parties submitted supplemental briefing on issue of whether the public safety stop exceeded its lawful scope when officer asked for McKenna’s name and ran a warrants check.

ISSUE: (1) Public safety stop

HELD: Under circumstances of this case, officer did not exceed scope of a public safety stop by asking for McKenna’s name, getting a verbal response, and checking that name locally for warrants. Three-part test in State v. Gonzales, 36 Kan.App.2d 446 (2006), is satisfied in this case. Record shows officer’s actions were motivated by a desire to render aid or assistance rather than to investigate criminal activity.  

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-2402(1)

Tags:  appeals  appellate procedure  constitutional law  criminal procedure  evidence  Fourth Amendment  jurisdiction  Reno District Court  Sedgwick District Court  statutes 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

January 10, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, January 13, 2020
Updated: Monday, January 13, 2020

Kansas Supreme Court

criminal 

appeals—constitutional law—criminal law—evidence—statutes
state v. jenkins
shawnee district court—affirmed
no. 118,120—january 10, 2020

FACTS: Jenkins led police on two car chases that resulted in a fatal crash. Jury convicted him of crimes including first-degree felony murder and fleeing and eluding police. Over Jenkins’ objection, district judge allowed State to introduce recordings of five calls Jenkins made while in jail using his personal identification number (PIN), finding the State sufficiently established Jenkins’ identity as one of the speakers. On appeal, Jenkins claimed the district court erred by admitting the recordings of the jail calls, arguing reliance on his PIN was insufficient to establish he was the male speaker. He also challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 8-1568(b)(1)(E), the option within a means of the felony fleeing and eluding statute dependent on five or more moving violations.

ISSUES: (1) Admission of jail calls; (2) constitutionality of K.S.A. 8-1568(b)(1)(E)

HELD:  Court examined cases from other jurisdictions and concluded the seven-factor test for authenticating an audio recording outlined in State v. Williams, 235 Kan. 485 (1984), is no longer controlling in Kansas. Audio recordings qualify as writings under the Kansas Rules of Evidence. On record in this case, and under current Rules and cases interpreting them, district judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the recorded calls as evidence. State proffered evidence upon which a reasonable juror could conclude that Jenkins made the recorded calls: strong circumstantial evidence that Jenkins was the caller by use of his unique PIN, supported by the content and timing of the calls.

Claim that the term “moving violations” in Kansas felony fleeing and eluding statute is unconstitutionally vague, which Jenkins raised first time on appeal, is considered, finding the statute is not unconstitutionally vague. Jenkins’ reliance on State v. Richardson, 290 Kan. 176 (2010), is criticized. Conduct underlying each of the moving violations used to convict Jenkins of fleeing and eluding and felony murder is clearly prohibited by Kansas law, and plain language of the defining statutory and regulatory provisions is clear. Jenkins’ argument for application of the rule of lenity is rejected.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-234b(d), -249(b), -1568(b)(1)(B), -1568(b)(1)(C), -1568(b)(1)(D), –1568(b)(1)(E), -1568(b)(2), 66-1,108(f); K.S.A. 8-262, -1508(c), -1519,  -1522(a), -1528(b), -1545, -1548,  60-401 et seq., 401(m), -404, -464, 66-1,108a

appeals—constitutional law—criminal procedure—jury instructions—statutes
state v. patterson
johnson district court—affirmed
no.118,180—january 10, 2020

FACTS: Patterson was convicted of crimes arising from an armed robbery in which a victim was killed by an accomplice. On appeal he claimed: (1) his felony-murder conviction violated due process because a jury was not required to determine he possessed a particular criminal mental state; (2) district court’s instructions and prosecutor’s voir dire comments improperly prevented jury from exercising its nullification power; (3) his hard 25 life sentence for felony murder is disproportionate to his crime in violation of Kansas and United States constitutions; and (4) use of prior convictions to elevate his sentence violated Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi.

ISSUES: (1) Felony-murder conviction; (2) instructing jury to apply the law; (3) prosecutor’s voir dire; (4) hard 25 life sentence; (5) Apprendi challenge

HELD: Constitutional challenge to felony-murder statute, raised by Patterson for first time on appeal, is considered. Felony-murder statute, K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5402(a)(2), does not operate as an unconstitutional conclusive presumption that invades the jury’s province. Intent to kill is not an element of felony murder. The statute expressly requires proof the defendant engaged in dangerous, felonious conduct and that a death occurred as a result of that conduct. By codifying participation in the felony as a statutory alternative for the intent and premeditation otherwise required for a first-degree murder conviction, the statute imposes a rule of law. It does not remove from jury’s consideration an intent element required by a criminal statute.

No merit to Patterson’s claim that district court’s instruction undermined the jury’s nullification power. District court’s instruction that jury had a “duty” to follow the law as set out in the instructions and that it “should find the defendant guilty” if State proved all elements of the charged offenses, was legally correct.

No merit to Patterson’s claim of error in prosecutor’s voir dire comment. It is not a misstatement of law to tell the jury to follow the law as given in the instructions.

Patterson did not show why his case is an exception to the general rule that case-specific challenges to § 9 of Kansas Constitution may not be raised for first time appeal. And his claim that a hard 25 life sentence is unconstitutional for a class of offenders (19-year olds) given the nature of his offense (those convicted of felony murder for a killing committed by another), fails to frame a valid categorical challenge to Eighth Amendment. The hard 25 life sentence is not categorically disproportionate as applied to young adults convicted of felony murder. Patterson’s reliance on Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), is misplaced.

Patterson’s Apprendi claim has been repeatedly rejected and is summarily dismissed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5202, -5202(a), -5202(d), -5402, -5402(a), -5402(a)(1), -5402(a)(2), -5402(b), 22- 3601(b)(3), -3601(b)(4) K.S.A. 21-3201 (Ensley)

criminal procedure—evidence—judges—statutes—witnesses
state v. lyman
geary district court—affirmed
no. 114,312 —january 10, 2020

FACTS: Lyman was convicted of felony murder based on abuse of a child, abuse of a child by shaking, and aggravated battery. After Lyman filed his appeal, defense counsel was served with disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence that prosecutor recalled seeing a family resembling Lyman and victim with his family in a store, and that the woman had acted aggressively toward one of the children. Lyman filed motion for new trial on this newly discovered evidence. He also requested a change of judge for post trial matters, alleging the judge had been sleeping during trial. District court held hearing and concluded the prosecutor’s recollection was not corroborated and too speculative to warrant a new trial. On appeal Lyman claimed district court erred by: (1) denying the motion for new trial; (2) excluding Lyman’s proposed expert witness (Young) for failing to satisfy test under Daubert, (3) allowing State to admit photos as evidence of Lyman’s prior bad acts; (4) sleeping during the trial; and (5) prohibiting Lyman from introducing medical records that were subject to a written stipulation. He also claimed cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Motion for new trial; (2) expert witness; (3) evidence of prior bad acts; (4) judicial misconduct; (5) stipulated medical records; (6) cumulative error

HELD: District court did not abuse its discretion by finding the newly discovered evidence was not of such materiality that it would likely produce a different result upon retrial. Lyman’s further argument for a Brady violation fails because the evidence was not credibly exculpatory or impeaching.

Extended discussion of “Young’s postulate,” an inferential test Young had developed and used to base all his testimony and opinions in this case. District court did not abuse its discretion by excluding Young’s testimony for failure to satisfy test in Daubert, finding Young’s inferential test was contrary to fundamental tenets of Kansas evidence law, Young’s opinions were developed for purposes of testifying for defendants charged with child abuse, and that another Kansas trial court had found Young was not credible and his medical testimony was not worthy of any belief. Court rejects Lyman’s invitation to separate Young’s opinions reached from using the inferential test from those that were not.

Under facts in case, evidence documenting prior assault of a child sufficient to visibly distress him and leave bruises constitutes other crime evidence under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-455. For evidence so similar to medical observations and conclusions at issue it is reasonable to conclude the same individual committed both the prior acts and those claimed in this case. It is relevant to show the defendant's modus operandi, a disputed material fact, and is probative because it contradicts the defendant's claim that previous health issues and not the defendant caused the child's death. District court did not abuse its discretion in finding the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Lyman’s motion for change of judge did not satisfy affidavit requirement in K.S.A. 20-4111d, and motion also fails on the merits.

Parties stipulated to the admissibility of medical records that form the basis of opinion of people for purposes of their direct and cross-examination. District court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to admit the medical records because the expert witness would not be testifying.

No errors support Lyman’s cumulative error claim.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3501(1), 60-455, -455(a), -455(b), -456(b); K.S.A. 20-311d, -311d(b), 22-3501, 60-401(b), -455, -456(b)

Kansas Court of Appeals

CIVIL

EMPLOYMENT—LEGISLATORS—VICARIOUS LIABILITY
LONG V. HOUSER
CHEROKEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED
NO. 120,866—JANUARY 10, 2020

FACTS: In 2017, Houser was a state representative for the State of Kansas. His job duties required that he be in Topeka during the legislative session. The state provided Houser with a per diem for lodging and meals, plus travel expenses. After the Legislature recessed for a break, Houser spent the night in Topeka and then got in his personal vehicle to return home. During the trip, Houser crossed the center line and hit Long's car, injuring him. Long sued both Houser and the State. The State sought summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for Long's injuries because Houser was not acting within the scope of his employment while he was traveling home from Topeka. The district court agreed, and Long appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Whether Houser was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident

HELD: Vicarious liability is the idea that the losses caused by an employee's tortious conduct are passed on to the employer as a cost of doing business. Vicarious liability only exists if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time the tortious activity occurred. Although it has not been used in a tort context, the "going and coming rule" applies to third-party tort liability claims as a gauge to determine whether vicarious liability exists. The facts of the case make it clear that Houser was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. This is true even though the State reimbursed Houser for travel costs.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 75-3203(a), -3202(b), -3203(e), -6103(a)

criminal 

appeals—constitutional law—criminal law—evidence—fourth amendment—motions 
state v. daino
johnson district court—reversed and remanded
no. 120,824—january 10, 2020

FACTS: Uniformed officers responded to report of marijuana odor coming from unit in apartment complex. Daino opened door 8-10 inches and officer asked if it was OK to step in to write ticket for marijuana. Daino did not verbally respond, but opened the door further and stood out of the way. Once officers discovered evidence of significant drug activity, Daino signed consent form for search of apartment but for roommate’s room. Drug charges filed. Daino filed motion to suppress, alleging illegal search in violation of Fourth Amendment. District court granted the motion, finding any reasonable person would have construed Daino’s response to indicate consent for officers to enter the apartment, but under Kansas law implied consent was not valid. State filed interlocutory appeal. On appeal Daino challenged sufficiency of the evidence of district court’s credibility finding regarding officer’s testimony.

ISSUES: (1) Cross-appeal; (2) consent to search

HELD: Sole issue on appeal is whether Daino’s consent for officers to enter apartment and investigate was invalid because it was implied. Daino filed no cross-appeal from district court’s adverse ruling, thus cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence or the district court’s credibility finding.

District court’s factual findings are supported by substantial competent evidence, but its legal conclusion that Kansas law requires express, verbal consent is erroneous. While it is well established law that mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority is inadequate to show voluntary consent, no Kansas Supreme Court case holds that consent must be verbal to be valid. Application of “mere acquiescence” rule by Court of Appeals panels, and subsequent Kansas Supreme Court cases, are examined and factually distinguished. Federal court cases upholding implied consent to enter a residence also are cited. Here, uncontested facts show that Daino yielded right of way to officers by his nonverbal, affirmative communication. Totality of circumstances shows that he unequivocally, specifically, freely, and intelligently consented to officers entering his residence to investigate smell of marijuana.

DISSENT (Buser, J.): Under totality of circumstances, would find Daino did not unequivocally, specifically, and freely and intelligently consent to officer’s entry into the apartment. Officer’s statements to Daino were misleading, and insufficiently informed Daino of officer’s purpose in seeking entry into the apartment or of Daino’s constitutional right to refuse entry. A reasonable person would understand that Daino was silently acquiescing to officer’s claim of lawful authority to enter the apartment because officer knew there was marijuana inside and was required to issue a citation. Would affirm district court’s suppression of evidence due to Fourth Amendment violation.  

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60- 2103(h); K.S.A. 21-5709(b)(1), 65-4105(d)(17), -4107(d)(1)

appeals—contempt—criminal procedure—evidence—witnesses
state v. lamb (towner)
shawnee district court—affirmed
No. 117,861—january 10, 2020

FACTS: Lamb charged with murder of victim in car Towner was driving, and with attempted murder of Towner. For Lamb’s preliminary hearing, Lamb and Towner had been transported to courthouse together and placed in same holding cell. When called to testify and identify Lamb as the shooter, Towner refused to testify. District court held Towner in contempt and ordered confinement. Charges against Lamb were dismissed. Towner appealed the court’s order of  direct criminal contempt, arguing he was threatened into not testifying and district court erred by not holding an in camera hearing, without Lamb present, so Towner could explain why he was not testifying. State asserted the appeal was moot because Towner had completed his six-month sentence for contempt, and failed to preserve his issue for appeal.

ISSUES: (1) Mootness of the appeal; (2) preservation of issue on appeal; (3) contempt

HELD: State v. Flanagan, 19 Kan. App. 2d 528 (1994), is distinguished as a contempt citation is not a criminal conviction and does not appear on a defendant’s criminal history. But mootness doctrine does not prevent the appeal because issue may be subject to repetition.

Panel proceeds on the merits notwithstanding close call whether Towner properly preserved his claim that there was insufficient evidence to find him in contempt because judge disregarded information from prosecutor that Towner was under duress and did not provide Towner a safe environment to set forth his defense.

District court’s decision finding Towner in direct criminal contempt is affirmed. A judge has no duty to sua sponte hold an in camera hearing to determine if a witness is fearful to testify when the witness makes no such request. Towner failed to make a proffer of the evidence he wanted the court to consider, and the three federal cases he cited do not support his position. A judge has no independent responsibility to seek out evidence of duress from a recalcitrant witness.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5107(a), -5206; K.S.A. 60-405

appeals—criminal procedure—jurisdiction—motions—sentences—statutes
state v. mccroy
reno district court—appeal dismissed
No. 120,783—january 10, 2020

FACTS: District court sanctioned McCroy with second 180-day prison term after he violated terms of probation. State did not file motion to correct the order and instead appealed, arguing the second sanction was an illegal sentence because Kansas law only contemplates one 180-day sanction. McCroy contends there is no jurisdiction to consider State’s appeal which was not authorized by K.S.A. 22-3602 or any other appellate jurisdiction statute.

ISSUE: Appellate jurisdiction

HELD: K.S.A. 22-3504, governing post trial motions including motion to correct an illegal sentence, is not an appellate jurisdiction statute and does not vest an appellate court with jurisdiction to consider an appeal by the State solely on the claim that a sentence is illegal. Instead, an appellate court’s jurisdiction in a criminal case must arise from one of the limited procedural postures set forth in K.S.A. 22-3602. Different conclusion summarily reached in State v. Scherzer, 254 Kan. 926 (1994), but the sweeping jurisdictional statement in Scherzer no longer reflects the state of Kansas law. Appellate court’s jurisdiction is limited to those situations authorized by statute. State did not present its argument as a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), and panel makes no finding as to whether State’s general concerns regarding a second 180-day sanction could be raised in that context.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6820, 22-3501(1), -3502, -3504(1), -3602(a), -3602(b), -3602(f), -3716; K.S.A. 22-3504, -3504(a), -3601, -3602, -3602(b), -3602(b)(3), -3603, 60-1507, -2101, -2101(a), -2101(b)

Tags:  Appeals  Cherokee District Court  Constitutional Law  Contempt  Criminal Law  Criminal Procedure  Employment  Evidence  Fourth Amendment  Geary District Court  Johnson District Court  Judges  Jury Instructions  Legislators  Motions  Shawnee District Court  Statutes  Vicarious Liability  Witnesses 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

November 15, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, November 18, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Civil

DUTY OF AN EMPLOYER
REARDON V. KING
LEAVENWORTH DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED,
DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED, CASE REMANDED
NO. 114,937—NOVEMBER 15, 2019

FACTS: King, who was a licensed attorney, was employed by Trust Company of Kansas. TCK had a policy prohibiting employees from practicing law during employment. Despite that policy, and without TCK's knowledge, King represented Marilyn Parsons, a TCK client, during his tenure with TCK. Once TCK learned of this work, TCK filed a complaint of suspected elder abuse and a disciplinary complaint. An investigation revealed that Parsons had paid King over $250,000 in fees during his TCK employment. King voluntarily surrendered his law license and Parsons filed suit against both King and TCK. A jury found TCK liable for "negligent training" and King liable for breach of fiduciary duty. TCK appealed and the court of appeals reversed, finding the evidence insufficient. The Supreme Court granted review.

ISSUE: (1) Adequacy of jury instructions

HELD: A crucial instruction must be the district court's articulation of the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. Kansas law imparts a duty to employers whose employees injure a third party. The employer owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to prevent harm by employees acting within the scope of their employment. Determining whether that duty has been breached is a fact question for the jury. It was clearly erroneous to instruct the jury that TCK had definable duties to "train" and "supervise" its employees. Because the duty was misstated, both the jury instructions and verdict form were erroneous and the case must be reversed.

STATUTES: No statutes cited.

 

HABEAS CORPUS
JAMERSON V. SCHNURR
RENO DISTRICT COURT – REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 120,233 – NOVEMBER 15, 2019

FACTS: Jamerson is in custody after a 2001 felony conviction. In 2016, Jamerson was resentenced after the district court recalculated his criminal history score. During the recalculation, the Kansas Department of Corrections withheld good time credits. This prompted Jamerson to file a K.S.A. 60-1501 petition challenging that good time credit decision. The district court summarily denied this petition, finding that Jamerson failed to prove error. Jamerson filed a posttrial motion in which he alleged that KDOC deprived him of dur process by failing to hold a hearing before depriving him of good time credits. Apparently in response, the district court held a hearing and amended Jamerson's good time credit award. Jamerson appealed the decision to the Secretary of Corrections. Jamerson's motion was still pending, though, and the district court considered the matter and denied it as unripe. That decision was affirmed by the court of appeals. In August 2017, Jamerson filed a second K.S.A. 60-1501 petition challenging KDOC's August 2016 good time credit calculation. This 2017 petition was dismissed as untimely and Jamerson appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Timeliness of petition

HELD: The district court's finding that Jamerson failed to exhaust administrative remedies is not supported by substantial evidence. Jamerson's grievance procedure remained pending until Jamerson received actual notice of the KDOC's final administrative decision. The evidence in the record on appeal shows that Jamerson timely filed his K.S.A. 60-1501 petition within 30 days of receiving notice of the final administrative decision, and the district court erred by summarily denying the petition.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-1501(b); K.S.A. 75-52,138, 60-1501

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

 

criminal

constitutional law—criminal law—fourth amendment—evidence—motions
state v. ellis
lyon district court—reversed and remanded
no. 120,046—november 15, 2019

FACTS: Welfare check requested regarding woman (Ellis) who had been in a convenience store bathroom for a long time. Ellis reported she had been dealing with stomach problems, and complied with officer’s instruction to come out of stall and to hand over driver’s license for identification purposes. Officer found no medical assistance was needed, but held Ellis’ license to run a background check which resulted in her arrest on outstanding warrant. Officers then searched Ellis’ purse, finding methamphetamine and paraphernalia. Ellis was arrested and convicted on drug charges. District court denied motion to suppress, finding Ellis had voluntarily handed over license, and even if officer’s conduct was illegal, discovery of the outstanding warrant independently justified the arrest under Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016).  Ellis appealed, arguing the officer exceeded the scope of the welfare check by retaining her license and checking for warrants after concluding she did not need assistance.

ISSUE: Fourth Amendment—welfare check

HELD: Officer’s actions exceeded the scope of the authorized welfare check - the only constitutionally authorized encounter in this case. Ellis voluntarily providing identification did not relieve law enforcement of constitutional necessity of a reasonable and articulable suspicion before an investigation is permitted. Strieff is factually distinguished. No showing the attenuation doctrine applies in this case, and totality of circumstances warrant excluding evidence gained as a result of officer’s unlawful detention of Ellis.   

STATUTES: None

 

 

Tags:  Constitutional Law  Criminal Law  Duty of an Employer  Evidence  Fourth Amendment  Habeas Corpus  Leavenworth District Court  Lyon District Court  Motions  Reno District Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

November 8, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Kansas Court of Appeals

 

criminal

constitutional law—criminal procedure—motions—trials —statutes
state v. HAMMERSCHMIDT
Ellis District Court—reversed and remanded
no. 120,016—november 8, 2019

FACTS: Hammerschmidt was charged with a misdemeanor DUI. He filed motion to suppress evidence from the stop, arguing he was not given proper notices before the breath test. He also referenced two pending decisions awaiting rehearing in Kansas Supreme Court. District court granted continuances on its own initiative, citing the pending rehearing decisions. 607 days after a motion to suppress was filed, and 360 days after State v. Nece, 306 Kan. 679 (2017) (Nece II), and State v. Ryce, 306 Kan. 682 (2017) (Ryce II), the district court denied the motion to suppress. Hammerschmidt filed motion to dismiss, alleging violation of speedy trial statute. District court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint. State appealed, arguing in part that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3402(g) bars dismissal.

ISSUE: Speedy trial statute

HELD: District court erred by dismissing the case on statutory speedy trial grounds. Hammerschmidt first requested delay in the case by filing motion to suppress, and that delay was originally attributable to him. Because the matter was taken under advisement for an unreasonable amount of time and because it was unclear if Hammerschmidt consented to the delay, district court later attributed the delay to the State. Although the delay here was several hundred days, the legislature removed the remedy of dismissal when a district court later attributes delays to the State that were originally attributable to a defendant. K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3402(g). Hammerschmidt did not argue that prosecutorial misconduct precipitated the lengthy delay or that application of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3402(g) violated his constitutional speedy trial rights, and his statutory speedy trial claim is based on circumstances which expressly forbid dismissal on statutory speedy trial grounds.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3402, -3402(b), -3402(g)

constitutional law - criminal procedure - evidence - fourth amendment - motions
state v. fisher
Sedgwick District Court—affirmed
no. 120,031—november 8, 2019

FACTS: Officers entered the house in response to a 911 call report that someone in the house had been shot. No injured person was found, but officers discovered Fisher with drugs in plain view. Fisher was charged with drug offenses. He filed a motion to suppress, claiming the officers lacked a lawful justification to enter the house because they failed to first ask the two women standing outside the house any clarifying questions or whether they were injured. District court denied the motion, finding the clearing of the house to find if someone was hurt or dying was not unreasonable under the circumstances. Fisher was convicted in bench trial on stipulated facts. He filed timely appeal.

ISSUE: Emergency aid exception to warrantless search

HELD: District court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. The emergency aid exception test stated in State v. Neighbors, 299 Kan. 234 (2014), is applied, but an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals case is identified as more factually similar to the present case. Officers had authority under the emergency aid exception to act until assured that no one needed assistance. The mere presence of people outside the house where gunshots were reported did not remove the officer’s reasonable basis to search the house for victims. The possibility of someone suffering from a gunshot wound inside necessitated an immediate search.

STATUTES: None

criminal procedure—sentences—statutes
state v. wilmore
shawnee district court—affirmed
no. 120,171—november 8, 2019

FACTS: Wilmore was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with a child. On appeal, he claimed the district court imposed an illegal sentence in calculating criminal history by using two prior domestic battery cases that had been used in an earlier case to elevate the classification of a third domestic battering conviction to a felony.

ISSUE: Sentencing—criminal history calculation of prior domestic battery charges

HELD: Wilmore’s “double-counting” challenge is rejected for same reasons stated in numerous unpublished court of appeals decisions. District court did not violate K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6810(d) in calculating Wilmore’s criminal history score. Wilmore’s alternative interpretation of the statute is unreasonable. Under court’s longstanding interpretation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6819(d), the unambiguous statutory language does not prohibit a district court from aggregating prior domestic battery person misdemeanors to create a person felony for criminal history purposes even when those same domestic battery convictions were used in an earlier case to elevate a domestic battery charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5414(c)(1)(C), -6810(d)(10), -6811(a), 22-3504(1)
K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-6810(d)(9)

Tags:  Constitutional Law  criminal procedure  Ellis District Court  evidence  Fourth Amendment  motions  Sedgwick District Court  sentences  Shawnee District Court  statutes  trials 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

July 5, 2019 Digest

Posted By Administration, Monday, July 8, 2019

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

constitutional law—criminal law—fourth amendment—
probation—sentences—statutes
state v. hinnenkamp
sedgwick district court—affirmed
No. 119,125—july 5, 2019

FACTS: District court ordered Hinnenkamp to submit to random drug and alcohol testing as a condition of probation for her aggravated escape from custody conviction. Hinnenkamp appealed, arguing K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6), which requires district courts to impose random drug and alcohol testing as a condition of probation, violates her federal and state constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure. State responds on merits of this argument, and also claims this issue is improperly raised for first time on appeal, jurisdiction is lacking because the issue is not ripe for consideration, and Hinnenkamp waived the issue by inadequate briefing.

ISSUES: (1) Threshold issues—preservation, ripeness, waiver; (2) constitutionality of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6)

HELD: Hinnenkamp is asserting her constitutional claim for first time on appeal, but her facial challenge to the constitutionality of the statute is considered. Her facial challenge to the statute is ripe for appeal, and she has not waived or abandoned her constitutional claim based on inadequate briefing.

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6), which subjects probationers to suspicionless drug and alcohol testing, does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment of U.S. Constitution or §15 of Kansas Bill of Rights. This mandatory statutory condition of probation is exempt from Fourth Amendment’s general warrant requirement because (1) special needs of the probation system make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable, and (2) the primary purpose of random drug and alcohol testing for probationers is distinguishable from State’s general interest in crime control. Weighing a probationer’s diminished expectation of privacy against State’s interest in promoting rehabilitation and probation compliance, and considering the efficacy of random suspicionless drug and alcohol testing, it is reasonable to permit a court services officer or community correctional services officer to order a probationer to submit to random drug and alcohol testing, even without any suspicion of wrongdoing. Two recent unpublished Court of Appeals opinions upholding the constitutionality of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(6) in similar cases are cited and reviewed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-6607(c)(5), -6607(c)(6), 22-3717(k)(2); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025

Tags:  8807  Constitutional Law  Fourth Amendment  Probation  Sedgwick District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

November 21, 2018 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, November 26, 2018

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF INDEFINITE SUSPENSION
IN THE MATTER OF ROSIE M. QUINN
NO. 119,148—NOVEMBER 21, 2018

FACTS: Quinn was found to be in violation of KRPC 8.4(b) (committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty or fitness). She was convicted of multiple federal felonies after failing to pay income taxes. Quinn's law license was temporarily suspended after she self-reported the convictions. While that disciplinary proceeding was pending, Quinn asked to have her status changed to disability inactive status. That request was granted, with the understanding that Quinn was required to obtain an independent mental health evaluation. Quinn failed to obtain that evaluation and as a result, her license was transferred back to a temporary suspension.

HEARING PANEL: The hearing panel noted Quinn's history of discipline and the nature of her convictions. The panel also cited Quinn's mental health issues and reputation in her community as mitigating factors. The disciplinary administrator's office recommended that Quinn be indefinitely suspended with the suspension made retroactive to three years prior to the date of the final hearing report. The hearing panel noted that Quinn presented compelling evidence of rehabilitation and relied heavily on the mitigating evidence in recommending that Quinn's license be suspended for three years, with that suspension made retroactive to October 5, 2011. The hearing panel believed that Quinn should be eligible for reinstatement without further proceedings.

HELD: The court adopted the hearing panel's findings and conclusions. The only question for the court to consider is whether Quinn should be required to undergo a reinstatement hearing before being allowed to return to practice. A majority of the court held that Quinn should be indefinitely suspended with an effective date of October 2011. Before being reinstated, Quinn must complete various tasks including a bar exam review course and continuing legal education hours. A minority of the court would have disbarred Quinn.

Civil

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW—TENURE
HARSAY V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT—Affirmed
COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED
NO. 114,292—NOVEMBER 21, 2018

FACTS: The University of Kansas hired Harsay to a tenure-track position in 2004. She began the tenure review process in 2009. Peer reviewers were hesitant to give unqualified recommendations for tenure; there were concerns about insufficient scholarship activities leading to an inability to secure funding. Nevertheless, the department-level committee recommended that Harsay receive tenure. The College Committee disagreed and voted to reject Harsay's application. That decision was ratified by the University Committee. Harsay appealed to the university but the chancellor upheld the decision to deny tenure. Harsay filed a timely petition for judicial review, but it was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Using the savings statute, Harsay refiled the action. The district court denied on the merits Harsay's challenge to the university's decision. The court of appeals reversed, noting inaccuracies in the College Committee's report and expressing concerns about the adequacy of the university's factual findings. The university's petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Savings statute; (2) substantial evidence

HELD: Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure can apply to actions taken under the KJRA. And the plain language of K.S.A. 60-518 allows it to apply to any action. Although the reports of various tenure committees were short on details and contained errors, there is adequate support in the record as a whole for the ultimate decision to deny tenure to Harsay.

CONCURRENCE (Goering, D.J. assigned): There is substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the university's decision on Harsay's tenure application. But the panel erred by finding that K.S.A. 60-518 can apply to cases brought under the KJRA.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 77-613, -621(c)(4), -621(c)(7), -621(c)(8), -621(d); K.S.A. 60-518

Criminal

constitutional law—criminal law—Fourth Amendment—statutes
state v. Evans
dickinson district court—affirmed and remanded
No. 119,458—November 21, 2018

FACTS: An officer conducted a warrantless search of Evans’ purse and wallet after an ambulance took Evans from auto accident scene. Evans was arrested and charged with drug offenses after officer found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in zippered pocket of the wallet. Evans filed motion to suppress, alleging the search violated the Fourth Amendment. State argued the warrantless search was valid under the plain-view exception and the officer’s administrative caretaking function of locating Evan’s driver’s license to complete an accident report. District court disagreed and granted the motion to suppress. State filed interlocutory appeal.

ISSUES: (1) Warrantless search—community caretaking function, (2) warrantless search— duty to complete accident report

HELD: District court’s judgment was affirmed. The caretaking role of law enforcement does not itself constitute an exception to the warrant requirement. Both Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (1973), and South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976), support caretaking/ inventory searches conducted under standard police procedures. Here, no evidence established the standard procedures of the police or county sheriff’s office. Accordingly, Dombrowski, Opperman and related cases do not support State’s contention that the search of Evan’s purse and wallet fits a well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement.

State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835 (1998), which relied on plain view and inventory search exceptions to the warrant requirement, did not create a new exception allowing a search simply because officers have a duty to complete the accident report. State failed to meet burden of establishing the inventory exception, and under facts in this case the drug evidence was not in plain view. Nor did the circumstances present an exigency or an emergency that required immediate verification of Evans’ identity or give rise to the emergency doctrine exception. Kansas statutes allow drivers a reasonable time to produce their own driver’s license, and legislature did not impose a duty on officers that would justify invading privacy guaranteed by Fourth Amendment.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1604, -1611, -1611(a), -1611(a)(2), -1612, -1612(a), -1612(b), 22-3603; K.S.A. 8-244, 20-3018(c)

criminal law—criminal procedure—evidence—
jury instructions—prosecutors—statutes
state v. haygood
wyandotte district court—affirmed
No. 115,591—november 21, 2018

FACTS: A jury convicted Haygood of premeditated first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm. On appeal he claimed error in the admission of his long-term girlfriend’s testimony about prior domestic violence, and the denial of his request for jury instructions on the affirmative defense of self-defense and the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. Haygood also claimed the prosecutor, in closing argument, misstated the facts or law, argued facts not in evidence, commented on witness credibility, and attempted to shift the burden of guilty to the defendant.

ISSUES: (1) Admission of K.S.A. 60-455 evidence, (2) prosecutorial error in closing argument, (3) instructions on self-defense and involuntary manslaughter

HELD: Three-part test in State v. Gunby, 282 Kan. 39 (2006), is stated and applied, finding the trial court did not err in admitting the prior domestic violence evidence to show motive.

Prosecutor’s comments and arguments contained facts that were either placed in evidence or that were reasonably inferred from trial evidence. Although some statements were inarticulately phrased, prosecutor did not misstate the law. No burden-shifting was implied from State’s closing argument, and no merit to claim that prosecutor impermissibly accused Haygood of lying.

In light of K.S.A. 2017Supp. 21-5108(c), as amended in 2010, Haygood was entitled to an instruction on self-defense affirmative defense because his testimony was competent evidence that could allow a reasonable juror to conclude he was entitled to defend with deadly force. District court erred by denying Haygood’s request for an instruction on self-defense, but the error was harmless in this case. Likewise, even if an involuntary manslaughter lesser included offense instruction is assumed to be factually appropriate, the failure to give a lesser included offense instruction was harmless error.

CONCURRENCE (Rosen, J.)(joined by Nuss, C.J. and Stegall, J.): Concurs with the result but departs from majority’s reasoning regarding the self-defense instruction. Disagrees that a defendant’s solitary declaration that he or she committed a crime in self-defense will always satisfy the competent evidence standard described in K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5108(c). Also disagrees with majority’s suggestion that the 2010 statutory provision meaningfully impacts this analysis. Under facts in this case, no rational fact-finder could reasonably conclude that Haygood acted in self-defense. Would find no error in trial court’s denial of a self-defense instruction.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5108(c), -5222, -5405(a)(4); K.S.A. 21-5108

criminal procedure—jury instructions—statutes
state v. pulliam
wyandotte district court—affirmed
court of appeals—affirmed
No. 113,493—November 21, 12018

FACTS: Pulliam was convicted of voluntary manslaughter (of Eisdorfer), second-degree murder (of Burton), and criminal possession of a firearm. He appealed, claiming in part the jury should have been instructed on a theory of imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included crime for the charge of second-degree murder. Court of appeals affirmed, holding such an instruction was not factually appropriate because State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009), required an unintentional killing for involuntary manslaughter, and there was no evidence Pulliam’s killing of Burton was unintentional. Pulliam’s petition for review granted on this one issue.

ISSUE: Jury instruction on lesser included offense of imperfect self-defense involuntary manslaughter

HELD: Court of appeals’ decision is affirmed, but on a different rationale. Pulliam’s jury instruction claim was reviewed for clear error in this case. Court of appeals’ decision relied on outdated law because Houston was based on an earlier version of the crime defining statute. The amended involuntary manslaughter statute and a new culpable mental states statute, K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5202, govern this case. Conviction of involuntary manslaughter under an imperfect self-defense manslaughter theory pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5405(a)(4) does not require proof of a reckless or unintentional killing. On evidence in this case, a lesser included offense instruction on the imperfect self-defense form of involuntary manslaughter was legally and factually appropriate. District court erred in not giving it, but no clear error found. Pulliam’s second-degree murder conviction is affirmed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5109(b)(1), -5202(a)-(j), -5203(b), -5402(a)(2), -5405(a)(1)-(4), 22-3414(3); K.S.A. 21-3201, -3201(b)-(c), -3404(c), -3761(a)(2)

Tags:  administrative law  Attorney Discipline  constitutional law  Dickinson District  Douglas District  evidence  fourth amendment  jury instructions  statutes  tenure  Wyandotte District 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)