Donald L. Allegrucci

The case concerned whether Kansas could impose its motor-fuel tax on non-resident Indian tribes and their corporations that import fuel from outside the state and deliver it for retail sale at gas stations on Kansas reservations. The Kansas Supreme Court answered a certified question from the federal district court by holding that the tax law does not impose collection or payment responsibility on the tribes in these circumstances. The court reasoned that the legal incidence of the tax falls on the distributor of first receipt within Kansas, and the tribal corporation did not qualify as a distributor under the statutory definitions because receipt of the fuel occurred only upon delivery at the reservation outlets, not when trucks crossed the state line.

taxesfederal power

This case involved a medical malpractice claim by Laura Smith against Dr. Becky Graham for injuries from a 1999 surgical procedure. The district court dismissed Smith's third petition as barred by the statute of limitations, and both the Court of Appeals and Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that requesting a screening panel did not toll the limitations period under K.S.A. 65-4908 because no panel was actually convened by court order, and Smith's second petition was filed after the 30-day tolling window while the first petition remained pending. As a result, the second petition was untimely, so the savings statute K.S.A. 60-518 could not make the third petition timely.

proceduretorts & liability

The case concerned Steven Ibarra's convictions on multiple methamphetamine-related charges after a traffic stop for a missing license plate light, during which officers smelled ether, conducted a search of the vehicle, and found drugs, precursors, paraphernalia, and other items. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed rulings from the Court of Appeals on the denial of Ibarra's motion to suppress evidence, jury instructions for manufacture versus attempted manufacture, multiplicity of charges, jury unanimity, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentencing under conflicting statutes. The court addressed whether the strong odor of ether alone, recognized by officers as associated with methamphetamine production, established probable cause for a warrantless search, analyzing precedents involving odors of alcohol or marijuana and concluding that the smell provided a sufficient basis for the search. The opinion also discussed the plain smell doctrine and rejected distinctions based on whether the substance was controlled or legal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves John F. Francis's appeal of his jury conviction for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Clem Hollingsworth IV, which occurred in apparent retaliation for Hollingsworth's earlier killing of Francis's cousin. Francis raised multiple claims of error, including issues with the admission of evidence, jury instructions, and the sufficiency of the evidence linking him to the crime. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence, including witness identifications and statements about planning the murder, was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that any trial errors did not prejudice the defendant or warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Garcia, Arturo Garcia was convicted by a jury of two counts of premeditated first-degree murder and one count of intentional second-degree murder after shooting three victims at his club, with their bodies later dismembered and burned; he received consecutive hard 50 sentences for the first-degree convictions and 165 months for the second-degree conviction. Garcia appealed, arguing denial of his statutory right to a speedy trial, improper admission of witness statements and testimony about his statements, and the unconstitutionality of the hard 50 sentences imposed without a jury finding on aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that objections to evidence were either not preserved or that any erroneous admissions were harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and that the sentencing claim was controlled by prior precedent rejecting the constitutional challenge.

criminal lawprocedure

In Phillips v. State, the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the denial of Brian D. Phillips' K.S.A. 60-1507 motion after his 1993 first-degree murder conviction, which had been upheld on direct appeal. Phillips claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call certain witnesses including Larry Marsh, to elicit specific testimony, to object to evidence, and for other alleged deficiencies, as well as a due process violation from insufficient findings by the trial court. The majority affirmed the Court of Appeals and district court, concluding that counsel's performance was not prejudicial under the applicable standard and that the trial court's oral and written findings were adequate for review. The court reasoned that the totality of the evidence at trial did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

criminal lawprocedure