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

In State v. Moody, the defendant was charged with felony DUI after two prior convictions, pleaded guilty under a plea agreement, and was later sentenced as a fourth-time offender once a third prior conviction was identified in her criminal history, which she acknowledged. The Kansas Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court had jurisdiction to impose the enhanced sentence and whether due process requirements were met, rejecting a prior Court of Appeals panel's jurisdictional analysis in favor of a due process review. The court affirmed the sentence, finding that the acknowledgment of the additional conviction provided adequate notice and process. It also considered the separate issue of ordering reimbursement to the Board of Indigents' Defense Services without a prior inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Deah Trotter was injured in her employer's parking lot by a coworker's negligent driving and accepted workers' compensation benefits from her employer Aeroflex and its insurer PMA. Trotter sued the coworker, whose insurer Allstate settled for the policy limits of $100,000, after which Aeroflex and PMA intervened to assert a subrogation lien on the proceeds under K.S.A. 44-504. The district court realigned the parties, denied the subrogation claim, and ordered the funds disbursed to Trotter; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the statute permits subrogation only against recoveries from "some person other than the employer or any person in the same employ," explicitly excluding coworkers, so no lien arose. It also rejected the employers' equitable estoppel argument, finding no detrimental reliance on Trotter's conduct.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involved two Hutchinson businesses whose buildings were destroyed in a 2001 explosion caused by natural gas migrating from underground storage caverns operated by ONEOK and its subsidiary MCMC. A jury found each defendant 50% at fault for negligence, awarded compensatory damages to the plaintiffs, and determined that punitive damages were warranted against MCMC, which the trial court set at $5.25 million total. The defendants appealed the denial of setoffs for subrogation claims and the punitive damages amount, while the plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of attorney fees. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the liability findings and punitive damages award but reversed on the setoff and attorney fees issues, remanding for calculation of the setoff and reasonable fees under K.S.A. 55-1210(c)(3).

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between a farmer and his commercial insurers over coverage for damage to a 1995 Jet Pup farm trailer that collapsed while being loaded with grain in July 2001. The insurers denied the claim, leading the insured to sue for breach of the policy; the trial court granted summary judgment finding coverage, lack of good faith investigation by the insurers, and entitlement to attorney fees, with a jury later awarding damages for repairs and loss of use. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed coverage but remanded issues of bad faith and fraud for trial while denying loss-of-use coverage. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the appellate decision, ultimately affirming the district court's judgment on coverage and related matters while remanding as needed, based on interpretation of the insurance policy terms and the absence of applicable exclusions like wear-and-tear or mechanical breakdown.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved non-Indian parents petitioning to adopt B.G.J., an Indian child under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), following the biological mother's voluntary relinquishment of custody to an adoption agency. The Prairie Band Potawatomie Nation intervened, objecting to the placement and seeking compliance with ICWA's preferences for tribal or relative placements. The district court determined that good cause existed to deviate from those preferences, citing the mother's explicit choice of the adoptive parents, the family's lack of connection to tribal culture or religion, and the unavailability of suitable tribal options, and granted the adoption. On review, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the good cause exception consistent with federal statutes and guidelines, and declined to consider the existing Indian family doctrine because it was not used below.

family lawfederal power

In Foster v. Kansas Department of Revenue, two drivers had their licenses suspended after refusing breath alcohol tests, and each petitioned for judicial review claiming the Kansas Department of Revenue failed to set their administrative hearings 'forthwith' as required by K.S.A. 8-1020(d). The district court vacated the suspensions on timeliness grounds, and KDR appealed, raising questions of jurisdiction, the meaning of 'forthwith,' and available remedies. The Kansas Supreme Court held that courts have jurisdiction to review the procedural issue despite statutory limits on hearing scope, that the hearings were not set forthwith, and that vacation of suspensions requires a factual finding of prejudice to the drivers. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on whether prejudice occurred, noting that automatic dismissal would undermine the statute's purpose of promptly removing unsafe drivers. The case involves administrative procedure in implied-consent license suspensions under state criminal law.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Roger Klein suing Oppenheimer & Co., a clearing broker, for liability under the Kansas Securities Act after an introducing broker sold him unregistered securities. The district court granted summary judgment to Oppenheimer, finding no aider-and-abetter liability under K.S.A. 17-1268(a), no material aid under 17-1268(b), and that most of the securities qualified for a registration exemption. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the rulings on aiding and abetting and the exemptions but reversed on material aid, holding that Oppenheimer could be jointly and severally liable under K.S.A. 17-1268(b) based on the stipulated facts, and remanded for further proceedings including on federal preemption for the remaining security.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Coy Mathis, who was charged with two counts of child abuse and one count of felony murder after the death of a two-year-old child left in his care. The trial court dismissed one abuse count as merged with the felony-murder charge, and a jury convicted Mathis of felony murder while acquitting him on the remaining abuse count; Mathis was sentenced to life imprisonment. On the State's appeal of the merger ruling and Mathis's cross-appeal raising issues of juror misconduct, evidentiary sufficiency, admissibility of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and cumulative error, the Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal on a question reserved and affirmed the conviction. The court held that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying a new trial, that sufficient evidence supported the verdict, that challenged evidence was properly admitted, and that trial counsel's performance was not deficient after reviewing the remand hearing record. The 60-1507 collateral action was treated as part of the direct appeal but did not alter the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Ackward, the defendant was convicted by a jury of felony murder and attempted possession of marijuana with intent to distribute after a drug transaction in a Topeka apartment complex ended in the shooting death of Joshua Buckman; Ackward was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, he challenged the voluntariness of his police statement, the admission of a gun into evidence, the self-defense jury instruction, the admission of a victim photograph, the trial court's refusal to strike two prospective jurors for cause, and cumulative error. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the statement was voluntary, the self-defense instruction was proper, the photograph was admissible, the seated jury was impartial despite the denied challenges for cause, admission of the gun was erroneous but did not create cumulative prejudice given the overwhelming evidence, and no other errors occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Daniel Hanson, who was initially convicted of driving under the influence by a district magistrate judge based on a complaint that omitted an essential element of the offense. On appeal, a district judge arrested the judgment and dismissed the case without prejudice due to the defective complaint; the State then refiled a corrected charge, which Hanson moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the motion, convicted Hanson again after a stipulated trial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the subsequent prosecution did not violate double jeopardy because the original magistrate court lacked jurisdiction over the defective complaint and the appeal had vacated the first conviction, allowing the matter to start anew under K.S.A. 21-3108(4).

criminal lawprocedure

Michael Patten was convicted by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine, possessing drug paraphernalia, and possessing marijuana after officers discovered a mobile methamphetamine lab in a trailer he was towing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded for resentencing on the manufacturing charge, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review solely on whether the paraphernalia and manufacturing charges were multiplicitous. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the two offenses are not multiplicitous under a strict elements analysis because the statutory elements of possession of drug paraphernalia under K.S.A. 65-4152(a)(3) are not identical to any elements of manufacturing methamphetamine under K.S.A. 65-4159(a). The court rejected a facts-based approach to multiplicity in favor of the elements test for consistency and ease of application.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Justin Phinney, who pled no contest to possession of pseudoephedrine under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 65-7006, a drug severity level 1 felony, and received a 150-month sentence with probation. After his probation was revoked, Phinney sought to reduce his sentence based on State v. Frazier, which held that the offense was identical to a lesser crime under K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 65-4152(a)(3) carrying a severity level 4 penalty, but the district court denied relief as non-retroactive. Phinney pursued an out-of-time direct appeal, which the court allowed under State v. Ortiz because neither his counsel nor the sentencing court informed him of his appeal rights. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the appeal must be treated as timely filed and pending when Frazier was decided, requiring application of the identical offense doctrine and resentencing as a level 4 felony, while dismissing the separate appeal from the motion to reduce sentence for lack of jurisdiction.

criminal lawprocedure

Nathaniel Bell was convicted by a jury of one count of premeditated first-degree murder after stabbing Jose Felix in an apartment following a night of drug and alcohol use. On appeal, Bell argued that his police statement should have been suppressed as involuntary due to intoxication, that he acted in self-defense, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law on voluntary intoxication during closing argument. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the statement was admissible, that the evidence did not support self-defense, and that the prosecutor's improper remark was harmless error because the jury received correct instructions on voluntary intoxication and followed them.

criminal lawprocedure

Jimmie R. Bryant pled guilty in 2002 to attempted manufacture of methamphetamine, a severity level 1 drug felony, and received an 81-month sentence under a plea agreement in which other charges were dismissed. Nearly a year later, he filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 collateral motion seeking resentencing to a severity level 3 drug felony under State v. McAdam, which held that certain drug offenses have identical elements and require the lesser penalty. The district court denied relief, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed as well. The court held that McAdam and similar rulings from direct appeals do not apply retroactively in collateral attacks on unappealed convictions after a favorable plea agreement, and that a defendant has no federal or state constitutional right to the lesser sentence when two offenses have identical elements.

criminal lawprocedure