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 28, 2020 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, August 31, 2020

Kansas Supreme Court

Attorney Discipline

ORDER OF DISBARMENT
IN RE SUSAN ELIZABETH VAN NOTE
NO. 16,327—AUGUST 26, 2020

FACTS: In 2012, the Disciplinary Administrator initiated an investigation into Van Note after she was charged with two counts of murder in Missouri. Her license was temporarily suspended while the criminal process concluded. Van Note was acquitted on criminal charges and a wrongful death lawsuit was settled. Van Note was disbarred in Missouri in 2017. In a letter signed by Van Note on July 21, 2020, she voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law in Kansas.

HELD: The Court accepts the surrender of Van Note's license to practice law in Kansas and she is disbarred.

criminal

appellate procedure—contracts—criminal procedure—evidence—motions
state v. Braun
ellis district court—reversed and remanded; court of appeals—reversed
No. 113,762—august 28, 2020

FACTS: State charged Braun with DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2) for having blood alcohol content of more than 0.08, and in the alternative with DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(3). Braun filed motion to suppress the blood test, arguing the Kansas implied consent law was unconstitutionally coercive. District court denied the motion. In bench trial on a conditioned stipulation of facts to be used for consideration of motion to suppress or as necessary to preserve Braun’s arguments about the motion, district court convicted Braun of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2). Journal entry did not mention the alternative charge. Braun appealed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. In unpublished opinion the Court of Appeals affirmed Braun’s conviction. Panel found the district court should have suppressed the blood test result but that error was harmless because there was sufficient evidence in the stipulated facts to establish that Braun committed the alternative charge of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 8-1567(a)(3). Braun’s petition for review granted on sole issue of whether panel erred in finding harmless error.

ISSUE: Stipulated facts in support of conviction on alternative charge

HELD: Braun’s conviction is reversed. Parties can agree to conditions that limit the circumstances where stipulated facts can be used, and a court is bound by any such conditions or limitations. Here the purpose of the stipulation was solely to determine the issue of law arising from Braun’s motion to suppress, and also conveyed that the facts would not be binding if an appellate court determined that a conviction based on K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2) was not valid. Panel erred by not considering and applying the conditions that limited the binding nature of the parties’ stipulation. District court’s judgment is reversed and case is remanded for further proceedings related only to the alternative count of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2).

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-261; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1001(k), -1567(a)(2), -1567(a)(3)

constitutional law—criminal law—criminal procedure—motions—sentencing—statutes
state v. Juarez
lyon district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
no. 118,543—august 28, 2020

FACTS: Juarez entered plea to aggravated battery of prison guard. District court found Juarez guilty but did not notify him of obligation to register as a violent offender under Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), and KORA did not list aggravated battery as a crime that automatically required registration. Juarez remained confined until sentencing hearing six weeks later. At sentencing, district court exercised its discretion to require Juarez to register as a violent offender under KORA. Juarez objected to lack of notice to register but offered no evidence on the issue. Sentencing continued to address restitution. Juarez again objected to lack of notice but again offered no evidence and asked for no additional time to present evidence. Three weeks later, sentence became final upon restitution order. Juarez appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion, relying on State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768 (2018). Sole issue on review is whether the notice provided by the district court violated Juarez’ right to due process.

ISSUE: Due process—notice of obligation to register as violent offender

HELD: Validity of the district court’s registration order is not challenged and is presumed valid. District court’s failure to provide timely notice of Juarez’s obligation under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-4904(a)(1)(A) did not constitute a denial of procedural due process because Juarez failed to demonstrate prejudice. He neither presented additional evidence nor asked for the opportunity to do so with respect to district court’s exercise of discretion to order registration, and he remained incarcerated with no responsibility to register between the time the district court should have provided notice and the time it actually did so.  

CONCURRENCE (Biles, J.): Concurs with the result but believes Marinelli controls disposition. District court’s timing error does not excuse the registration obligation, and Juarez did not show any prejudice.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.): Concurs that Juarez’ due process rights were not violated, but does so because district court’s registration order was not valid. Based on State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733 (2018), once Juarez was convicted the district court lost its opportunity to create the necessary precondition for a registration obligation to spring into existence through judicial fact-finding. When a district court does not make the necessary fact-finding at time of conviction - and the notice is not given - no process has been denied because the defendant is not an offender required to register under KORA.

DISSENT (Rosen, J.)(joined by Beier, J.): Would find Juarez’ due process rights were violated. Stands by his dissents in previous cases that KORA is punitive in effect, and thus is a consequence of Juarez’ plea. Marinelli is distinguished. Here, Juarez plead no contest to a crime while completely unaware the court would later require him to register under KORA, and he was never offered the opportunity to withdraw that plea by demonstrating good cause (pre-sentencing motion) instead of having to show manifest injustice (post-sentencing motion.  

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5413(b)(2)(A), 22-4901 et seq., -4902(e)(1), -4902(a)(5),  -4904(a)(1)(A); K.S.A. 22-4902, -4905

appeals—appellate procedure—criminal law—statutes
state v. Lindemuth
shawnee district court—reversed and remanded; court of appeals—affirmed
No. 116,937—august 28, 2020

FACTS: Jury convicted Lindemuth of one count of criminal threat, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5415(a)(1). Court of Appeals reversed, holding trial court erred by rejecting proposed jury instruction on workplace defense. 55 Kan.App.2d 419 (2018). State sought review of panel’s decision on factual appropriateness of the workplace defense instruction. Days prior to oral argument, State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 880 (2019) and State v. Johnson, 310 Kan. 835 (2019), held the provision in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5415(a)(1), allowing a conviction if a threat of violence is made in reckless disregard for causing fear, is unconstitutionally overbroad. Lindemuth filed Supreme Court Rule 6.09 letter arguing his appeal was affected and requesting reversal of his conviction as in Johnson. Supplemental briefing ordered.

ISSUE: Change of law—constitutional error

HELD: Panel’s judgment is affirmed as right for the wrong reason. Lindemuth’s conviction cannot stand after Johnson, regardless of outcome on State’s issue for review. Like Johnson, the trial record provides no basis for court to discern whether jury concluded the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindemuth committed criminal threat intentionally, and court cannot conclude the State met its burden of showing the constitutional error was harmless. District court’s judgment is reversed and case is remanded with directions.

DISSENT (Biles, J.)(joined by Stegall, J.): Would find the constitutional error harmless under the rationale in Justice Stegall’s dissenting opinion in Johnson, and would keep the case to reach the instructional error claim.

DISSENT (Rosen, J.): Would find the constitutional error harmless. While there was strong evidence supporting intentional conduct in Johnson, he agreed with majority that there was also evidence of recklessness.  Here he sees no evidence of recklessness where Lindemuth simply denied making any threatening statements.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5202(h), -5202(j), -5223(a), -5415(a)(1)

 

Kansas Court of Appeals

criminal

appeals—criminal procedure - sentencing
state v. Dominguez
sedgwick district court - reversed and remanded
no. 121,618—august 28, 2020

FACTS: Dominguez sentenced in August 2017 to prison term and granted probation for 24 months. In October 2017 district court found probation violation and imposed three-day quick dip jail sanction. A September 2018 warrant issued for six probation violations. At a July 10, 2019, hearing district court revoked probation, applying the July 1, 2019, amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme which removed the requirement for a 120-day or 180-day sanction before revocation could be ordered. Dominguez appealed, arguing for first time that district court should have applied either the law in effect at time of her 2018 probation violations or the law in effect when she committed her 2017 crimes of conviction.

ISSUE: Revocation of probation—K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716

HELD: Following the reasoning in State v. Coleman 311 Kan. 332 (2020), and finding unpublished Court of Appeals’ opinions on the same issue persuasive, court holds the 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment.  State’s reliance on State v. Tearney, 57 Kan.App.2d 601 (2019), is misplaced.  Reversed and remanded for new dispositional hearing. District court must impose either a 120-day or 180-day prison sanction before revoking Dominguez’ probation unless the court finds a valid statutory ground to circumvent further intermediate sanctions.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6810(e), 22-3716, -3716(c), -3716(c)(1)(C), -3716(c)(10);  K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(A)-(D); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)(B), -3716(c)(12); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c); K.S.A. 22-3716

Tags:  appeals  appellate procedure  constitutional law  contracts  criminal law  criminal procedure  disbarment  Ellis District Court  evidence  Lyon District Court  motions  Sedgwick District Court  sentencing  Shawnee District Court  statutes 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

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)
 

December 13, 2019 Digests

Posted By Administration, Monday, December 16, 2019

Kansas Supreme Court

Criminal 

attorneys—constitutional law—criminal law—
evidence—jury instructions—statutes
State v. Harris
Lyon district court—affirmed; court of appeals—affirmed
No. 112,883—December 13, 2019

FACTS: Harris held victim for two hours, repeatedly forcing her to move from room to room within small apartment while demanding money. Jury convicted him of robbery, kidnapping, and criminal threat. Harris appealed on claims of trial errors and ineffective assistance of counsel. Case remanded for Van Cleave hearing, with no relief granted. In unpublished opinion, Court of appeals affirmed, rejecting the ineffective assistance claim, and finding two trial errors which were harmless both individually and collectively. Review granted on adequately briefed issues. Harris claimed insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction and reasserted his claims of cumulative error and ineffective assistance of counsel. For first time on appeal, he claimed district court erred in failing to instruct on criminal restraint as a lesser included offense and failing to give unanimity instruction for kidnapping and robbery.

ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of evidence—kidnapping; (2) jury instructions—lesser included offense; (3) jury instructions—unanimity; (4) cumulative error; (5) ineffective assistance of counsel

HELD: Forcing victim from room-to room within one-bedroom apartment constitutes a taking or confinement within kidnapping statute’s meaning under State v. Bugs, 219 Kan. 203 (1976), and Harris’ movements were not merely incidental to the robbery. No substantive basis for Harris’ claim that his two-hour holding of the victim was part of one continuous effort to get the victim’s money. Pursuant to State v. Haberlein, 296 Kan. 195 (2012), panel correctly rejected Harris’ alternative means claim that evidence failed to show he held victim with intent to facilitate flight.

State conceded a lesser included instruction was factually and legally appropriate, but panel correctly found no clear error on facts in this case.

Unanimity instruction on the kidnapping count would not have been appropriate because all of Harris’ actions were part of one unitary conduct. And no unanimity instruction was necessary on robbery count because State elected one of the two acts that could separately constitute the alleged robbery.

No reversal on cumulative effect of district court’s error of instructing on criminal restraint as an alternative crime rather than a lesser included offense, and omitting the specific crime the kidnapping was meant to facilitate.

Van Cleave court found counsel’s failure to challenge the sufficiency of the charging document within 14 days after trial deprived Harris of the more-strict standard of review under State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 (1990), but no prejudice occurred under the “post-Hall” common-sense rule. Panel affirmed on the prejudice prong, applying State v. Dunn, 304 Kan. 773 (2016), which overruled Hall. But issue for appellate review was not the charging document’s sufficiency but whether Harris’ opportunity for a hearing under the pre-Hall standard was squandered. Following Ferguson v. State, 276 Kan. 428 (2003), the common-sense rule applies and record shows Harris suffered no prejudice.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp 21-5408, -5408(a), -5408(a)(2), -5420(a), 22-3201(b) -3414(3), -3502; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-261 

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

CONSUMER PROTECTIONCONTRACTSFORUM SELECTION
KANSAS CITY GRILL CLEANERS, LLC V. THE BBQ CLEANER, LLC
JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT
REVERSED AND REMANDED
NO. 118,687
DECEMBER 13, 2019

FACTS: Kansas City Grill Cleaners, LLC, and The BBQ Cleaner, LLC entered a contract for the purchase of outdoor grill cleaning equipment and supplies. The purchase agreement contained choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses which established that venue would exist only in Bergen County, New Jersey. In August 2016, KC Grill filed suit in Johnson County against BBQ Cleaner alleging a deceptive trade practice claim under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Relying on the forum-selection clause, BBQ Cleaner filed a motion to dismiss. The district court granted the motion, citing the forum-selection clause. KC Grill appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Enforcement of forum-selection clause

HELD: A forum-selection clause is unenforceable if the party resisting it shows that enforcement would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The KCPA contains a venue statute which is designed to allow Kansas consumers with certain prerogatives in prosecuting a consumer protection claim. A plain reading of that statute makes it clear the legislature intended to allow Kansas consumers to file suit against non-resident companies in Kansas. The district court erred when it found the forum-selection clause in this contract was enforceable.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 50-623(b), -625, -625(a), -625(c), -638(b)

DRIVER'S LICENSE SUSPENSION
MOLINA V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
FORD DISTRICT COURT
AFFIRMED
NO. 119,766
DECEMBER 13, 2019

FACTS: Deputy Scott stopped Molina after he was seen failing to maintain a single lane and changing lanes without signaling. After the stop, the officer noticed that Molina smelled like alcohol and had slurred speech. Molina failed a series of field sobriety tests and his preliminary breath test. Molina was arrested and transported to the sheriff's office, where personnel administered the Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test after waiting the prescribed 20 minutes. Molina's sample showed an alcohol level far exceeding the allowable amount, and Molina was given notice that his driving privileges were being suspended. Molina requested an administrative hearing and then review by the district court, claiming that Deputy Scott failed to substantially comply with the Intoxilyzer testing protocol. At the district court hearing, Molina's counsel failed to subpoena Deputy Scott, so there was no testimony regarding compliance with the testing protocol. Nevertheless, Molina argued that his Intoxilyzer results were flawed because Deputy Scott did not wait the required 20 minutes before administering the test. The district court disagreed, and Molina appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Compliance with testing procedure

HELD: Substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy the 20-minute wait requirement. There is absolutely no evidence to support Molina's claim that his waiting period was improperly cut short. Molina failed to meet his burden to prove error. Moreover, substantial evidence proves that more than 20 minutes elapsed from the start of the waiting period to when Molina actually performed the test. The district court correctly rejected Molina's claims to the contrary.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 8-259(a), -1020(h)(2)(F), -1020(q), 77-603(a), -621(a)(1), -621(c)(7), -621(d)

Tags:  attorneys  constitutional law  consumer protection  contracts  criminal law  driver's license suspension  evidence  Ford District Court  forum selection  Johnson District Court  jury instructions  Lyon District Court  statutes  Weekly20191217 

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)
 

January 16, 2015, Digests

Posted By Administration, Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Updated: Monday, February 10, 2020

Kansas Supreme Court

Criminal

STATE V. HOBBS
LYON DISTRICT COURT – AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS – AFFIRMED
NO. 107,667 – JANUARY 16, 2015

FACTS: In fight outside a bar, Hobbs punched victim who sustained serious injury when he hit his head on car bumper as he fell. Hobbs convicted of aggravated battery. On appeal he argued insufficient evidence supported the conviction. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Supreme Court accepted Hobbs’ petition to review appellate panel’s conclusion that aggravated battery under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5413(b)(1)(A) requires State to prove only that the defendant’s act that caused great bodily harm or disfigurement was intentional, not that the result of the act was intentional.

ISSUES: (1) Aggravated battery statute

HELD: History and construction of aggravated battery statute examined. K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-4513(b)(1)(A) requires state to prove that aggravated battery defendant acted while knowing that some type of great bodily harm or disfigurement of another person was reasonably certain to result. State not required to prove the defendant intended the precise harm the victim suffered. On record in this case, state presented sufficient evidence for jury to reasonably infer that Hobbs acted while knowing some type of great bodily harm or disfigurement was reasonably certain to result from the punch, even if Hobbs did not anticipate the victim’s precise injury.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 21-3201, -3414; K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-5202, -5202(f), -5202(g), -5202(i), -5413, -5413(b), -5413(b)(1)(A); and K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 21-3414a(c)

STATE V. KILLINGS
SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT – CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
NO. 108,021 – JANUARY 16, 2015

FACTS: A jury found Killings guilty of premeditated first-degree murder for what was a retaliatory murder for a prior robbery committed against Killings. He received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for 50 years (hard 50 life sentence). On direct appeal, Killings argues: (1) The district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on second-degree intentional murder and second-degree reckless murder as lesser included offenses of premeditated first-degree murder; (2) the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing arguments; (3) the district court erred by answering a juror's question when Killings was not present; (4) the cumulative effect of these alleged trial errors denied him a fair trial; (5) the district court, for multiple reasons, erred when it imposed a hard 50 life sentence; and (6) the district court erred by imposing lifetime post-release supervision instead of lifetime parole.

ISSUES: (1) Lesser included jury instructions; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (3) jury questions; (4) cumulative error; (5) sentencing; and (6) lifetime post-release supervision

HELD: Court concluded the district court applied the wrong legal standard when it denied Killings' request for a jury instruction on second-degree intentional murder. But, the error was harmless considering the overwhelming amount of evidence establishing that the victim's death resulted from a premeditated killing. Court also concluded the prosecutor's comment during closing argument stating that Killings failed to take responsibility for the murder was improper, but found the comment did not constitute reversible error. Court found the other alleged trial errors raised had no merit. Court vacated Killings' hard 50 life sentence as required by Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and State v. Soto, 299 Kan. 102, 124, 322 P.3d 334 (2014), and remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 21-3107, -3401, -3402, -4635, -4636, -6620; K.S.A. 22-3405, -3414, -3420; and K.S.A. 60-261

Kansas Court of Appeals

Criminal

STATE V. REED
BUTLER DISTRICT COURT – AFFIRMED
NO. 110,766 – JANUARY 16, 2015

FACTS: Reed entered no contest plea to one count of attempted aggrieved indecent liberties with a child, a sexually violent crime under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3717(d)(2)(C) and subject to mandatory lifetime post-release supervision. Overruling Reed’s claim of cruel and unusual punishment to lifetime post-release supervision for first time offender who only attempted but did not touch a child, sentencing court imposed prison term with lifetime post-release supervision. Reed appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Eighth Amendment challenge to lifetime supervision

HELD: Reed’s sentence is not categorically disproportionate in violation of Eighth Amendment. The "attempt” nature of a conviction does not remove it from general category of sexually violent crimes subject to lifetime post-release supervision. Lifetime post-release supervision as applied to first time offenders serves legitimate penological goals because supervised release meets same rehabilitative and deterrent objectives as it does for repeat offenders. Offenders guilty of attempting to commit a crime still have the intent required to commit it, so penological objectives for lifetime post-release supervision are the same for those offenders who completed the crime. Goals of rehabilitation and incapacitation, in particular, are served by imposition of lifetime post release supervision, given propensity of sex offenders to reoffend.

CONCURRING (Atcheson, J.): Concurs in the result affirming the sentence imposed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(G), -3717(d)(1)(5); K.S.A. 22-3717(d)(2)(K); K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 22-3717(d)(2); and K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 22-3717(d)(1)(g), -3717(d)(2)(C). -3717(d)(2)(K)

Tags:  aggravated battery  Atcheson J.  Butler District Court  Concurrence  Eighth Amendment Challenge  Lyon District Court  Shawnee District Court 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)