Bob Abbott

This case involved a dispute between the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners and Sheriff Wray Nielander over the Board's attempts to terminate a deputy sheriff's employment and to require the sheriff to obtain pre-approval for purchases exceeding $250. The Board adopted personnel policies asserting exclusive authority to hire and fire county employees and a purchasing policy mandating prior approval, then sought an injunction to enforce these rules after the sheriff continued employing the deputy. The district court granted the injunction, finding the Board had authority over the deputy and that the purchase policy was reasonable. On appeal, the court held that the Board lacked authority to discharge a deputy sheriff appointed by the elected sheriff and that a board may not require an elected official to obtain pre-approval for expenditures necessary to carry out statutory duties within the official's budget; it therefore reversed and vacated those portions of the injunction while affirming other aspects. The court also found the injunction's scope overbroad and inconsistent with statutory requirements for specificity.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Wayne A. Graham's conviction for driving under the influence after a traffic stop, where he moved to suppress blood alcohol test results obtained via an enzyme analysis method on a Kodak Vitros 250 machine. The district court held a Frye hearing and ruled the method inadmissible because it was not generally accepted in the scientific community for forensic purposes in criminal cases, leading to suppression of the evidence. On the State's interlocutory appeal, the court reviewed expert testimony from both sides, noting that the enzyme analysis technique has been used since 1951, is common in hospital labs, and is considered reliable by state labs and other jurisdictions, despite gas chromatography being viewed as the gold standard. The court concluded as a matter of law that the method meets the Frye standard, that conversion evidence from serum to whole blood is also admissible, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by William Mynatt and his company, Mynatt Truck & Equipment, Inc., against former vice president David Collis and his wife Ann Hughes, alleging that Collis misused corporate funds for personal expenses such as credit card payments, vehicles, and home improvements, while also asserting claims related to a promissory note and property ownership. Collis and Hughes denied the allegations and raised counterclaims regarding Mynatt's own use of corporate assets. The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on the misuse claims, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Collis breached his fiduciary duties through fraudulent conduct and that the punitive damages award was properly calculated under state statutes without abuse of discretion.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned a criminal restitution order following Robert Hunziker's guilty plea to felony criminal damage to property and misdemeanor theft for damaging a victim's backhoe and other property. The district court ordered restitution including the victim's attorney fees for preparing a restitution memo, the fair market value of the backhoe, lost profits, and various expenses, and set monthly payments at $200. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that attorney fees are recoverable as restitution when causally connected to the crime, but reversed in part and directed reduction of the total restitution award by $721.97 for certain unsubstantiated or excessive items; it also ruled that Hunziker's challenge to the monthly payment amount was not preserved because it was not raised below. The court affirmed the inclusion of attorney fees and the handling of the payment schedule issue.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a direct appeal by Romel Metteh Abu-Fakher from his conviction for the first-degree murder of his wife, Carol Abu-Fakher, for which he received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. The defendant, who had a history of assisting U.S. authorities abroad before immigrating, argued on appeal that prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, erroneous admission of evidence about prior incidents in the marriage, and flawed jury instructions deprived him of a fair trial. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the trial record, noted that several claims were not preserved because of the absence of timely objections, found no reversible error in the preserved issues, and concluded that the evidence supported the conviction. The court affirmed the judgment in full.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Vaughn and Sharon Lower, who purchased a cemetery lot in 1994 to erect a monument inscribed 'IN LOVING MEMORY OF ALL UNBORN BABIES' with a Bible verse, without intent to bury human remains. After the purchase, the Haskell County Cemetery District Board adopted a policy limiting lot use to interment of human remains and demanded removal of the monument; the Lowers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of property rights, free speech, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and due process. The district court granted summary judgment to the Board, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the post-purchase regulations did not apply to the Lowers' lot, that no taking occurred because the owners retained sepulture rights, that the Lowers lacked standing to challenge the regulations, and that they failed to show differential treatment of similarly situated owners.

free speechreligious libertycivil rightsproperty

This case involved Alroy V. Martens' appeal from multiple drug-related convictions after a bench trial, including three counts of selling marijuana and one count of manufacturing or attempting to manufacture methamphetamine, along with related possession and paraphernalia charges stemming from controlled buys and a search of his residence in 1998. The Kansas Supreme Court addressed Martens' claims that the complaint was jurisdictionally defective for failing to allege the elements of attempt in the methamphetamine count, that the evidence only supported attempt rather than completed manufacture, and that the late endorsement of two state witnesses was improper. The court granted a motion for clarification, modified its prior opinion, held that the statute created a single offense encompassing both manufacture and attempt but required proper pleading of attempt elements, and therefore remanded only the methamphetamine count for retrial while affirming the remaining convictions. It further reasoned that the late witness endorsements caused no surprise or prejudice because the defense had received the forensic reports in advance. The court upheld the district court's discretion in allowing the endorsements under the relevant statute.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jesse Villanueva's conviction for raping his former girlfriend after a second trial in Wyandotte County District Court, following a hung jury in the first proceeding. Villanueva appealed, challenging the admission of a social worker's testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments that suggested the victim was victimized a second time during the trial. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' affirmance and reversed the conviction, holding that the improper admission of the testimony and the prosecutor's remarks constituted reversible error. The court determined that these issues, when viewed in the context of the full trial record, warranted a new trial rather than being deemed harmless.

criminal law

The case involved a newspaper and its reporter petitioning for a writ of mandamus to compel the Kansas Secretary of Corrections to release, under the Kansas Open Records Act, records identifying parolees charged with murder or manslaughter between 1996 and 1999, along with related serious incident review board documents. The district court denied the request, finding the records exempt under statutes protecting supervision history, work product, and other privileges, and concluding that redaction would leave little disclosable information. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the claimed exemptions did not categorically bar disclosure of the requested records, that redacted versions could be provided without violating confidentiality provisions, and that the records were not located exclusively outside the court's jurisdiction. The appellate court remanded with instructions to issue the writ consistent with its interpretation of KORA.

free speechcriminal law

This case concerned Wabaunsee County's appeal of a Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) ruling that granted Lietz Construction an ad valorem property tax exemption for its bulldozers, scrapers, grader, excavator, and trailers under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 79-201j(a). BOTA found the equipment qualified as farm machinery because it was actually and regularly used 75-80% of the time for soil conservation work such as building terraces, waterways, and ponds on farms. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that uncontroverted testimony provided substantial competent evidence supporting BOTA's determination and that the statute applied to equipment used for hire in such farming operations, with the trailers also qualifying. The court rejected claims that the work's commercial aspects or BOTA's findings were insufficient for review.

taxesproperty

The case involved a plaintiff filing a civil lawsuit under the pseudonym "Unwitting Victim" against C.S. for claims including failure to disclose herpes, return of an engagement ring, misappropriation of funds from a joint account, and fear of contracting AIDS. The district court dismissed the suit because the plaintiff failed to use his real name as required by K.S.A. 60-210(a), finding no sufficient privacy interest to justify anonymity. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute requires parties' names in petitions and that the plaintiff's privacy interest was not exceptional enough to warrant an exception, and that denying leave to amend after dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Beard, Edward Scott Beard appealed his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder of Marvin Foos, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, denial of his motion to dismiss, exclusion of polygraph results, and the giving of a jury instruction based on PIK Crim. 3d 54.07. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after reviewing the crime scene evidence (including footprints, blood spatter, and a hammer-like weapon), witness testimony about events at Foos's home, the autopsy confirming homicide, and Beard's statements suggesting possible involvement of another person. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, the challenged instruction was appropriate given indications of potential accessory liability, and any instructional issues did not create a real possibility of a different outcome. No other errors warranted reversal.

criminal law

The case involved Audra Watson's conviction for attempting to introduce cigarettes into the Pratt County jail in violation of K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 21-3826 after she was observed leaving an envelope containing the cigarettes near the jail door. Watson appealed, conceding the statute was constitutional as applied but arguing it was facially unconstitutional due to vagueness in defining contraband and improper delegation of legislative authority to the jail administrator in violation of separation of powers. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the statute's language conveyed a sufficiently definite warning of proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and that precedent in State v. Ponce upheld the delegation of authority to the administrator of any correctional institution, including county jails.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brenner v. Oppenheimer & Co., Kansas residents Klein and Brenner sued a New York clearing broker, Oppenheimer, for selling them unregistered securities through an introducing broker, alleging violations of the Kansas Securities Act. The district court enforced a choice-of-law provision in the client agreement selecting New York law, under which Oppenheimer was not liable, and granted summary judgment to the defendant. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the choice-of-law clause was unenforceable because it contravened Kansas public policy strongly favoring the regulation of securities transactions to protect investors. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, declining to address the extent of liability under Kansas law as it was dicta.

business & regulatory

In State v. Wiggett, the defendant was convicted of attempted kidnapping, battery, and aggravated burglary after she pepper-sprayed a mother in a store parking lot and tried to remove an infant from a car seat; she was sentenced to 68 months in prison. Wiggett appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of criminal intent due to her claimed dissociative state from pseudocyesis (false pregnancy), supported by defense expert testimony, while the state presented rebuttal evidence that she had an antisocial personality disorder and could form intent. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find the required mental state beyond a reasonable doubt and declining to reweigh conflicting expert opinions.

criminal law

The case involved Alrick Eugene Payne, Sr., who was convicted by a jury of felony murder, aggravated robbery, possession of cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia in connection with the stabbing death of Eddie Harris. Payne appealed, arguing that his arrest was illegal, that evidence including drugs, a crack pipe, and his statements should have been suppressed, and that insufficient evidence remained to support the convictions. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the arrest was lawful, that Payne's statements were voluntary and not the product of interrogation or coercion, and that the evidence was properly admitted. The court reasoned that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's denial of the suppression motions and that a rational factfinder could find Payne guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Alroy V. Martens, who was convicted after a bench trial on multiple drug-related felony counts, including sale of marijuana and manufacture (or attempt to manufacture) of methamphetamine under K.S.A. 1997 Supp. 65-4159, based on controlled buys and a search revealing cultivation items and a suspected meth lab. Martens moved to arrest judgment, arguing the amended complaint was jurisdictionally defective for failing to allege the elements of attempt, and he also challenged the sufficiency of evidence and late witness endorsements. The district court denied the motions and sentenced him to a controlling 49-month term, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals on grounds that the complaint adequately informed him of the charge. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the methamphetamine conviction and remanded for a new trial, reasoning that although attempt is a lesser included offense under the statute, the trial court improperly convicted Martens of both manufacture and attempt in violation of K.S.A. 21-3107(2), and the complaint's failure to reference the attempt statute created ambiguity about the precise offense charged.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Peterson, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine after KBI officers searched his home pursuant to a warrant obtained from an informant's tip and seized drugs, chemicals, and manufacturing equipment. The Kansas Supreme Court addressed a statutory conflict and held that the 1994 amendment to K.S.A. 65-4159 removed any reference to attempt, so that attempt to manufacture is now a lesser included offense under K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(c) rather than part of the charged crime. The court concluded that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on attempt meant the instructions as a whole failed to fairly state the law and were likely to mislead the jury. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the manufacture conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the adoption of Baby Girl S. and a dispute over terminating the parental rights of the biological father, M.B. Potential adoptive parents appealed after the trial court denied their motion to end the father's rights. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and directed the trial court to terminate the father's rights and approve the adoption. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the matter, adopted the Court of Appeals opinion in full, affirmed its decision, and reversed the trial court.

family law

The case involved defendant Leonard Kirby's conviction for unintentional second-degree murder after he assaulted Karen Couts, his domestic partner, leading to her death from a ruptured spleen following emergency medical treatment. Kirby appealed, arguing that the trial court should have given causation instructions because alleged negligence by hospital physicians was an efficient intervening cause of death, and that juror inattentiveness during trial required a new trial. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the medical care did not break the chain of causation from the assault and that any juror dozing was momentary with no resulting prejudice shown.

criminal law