Harold R. Fatzer

This case involved a dispute over a farm lease with an option to purchase land in Kansas, where the lessee attempted to exercise the option within the contractual period but faced title defects preventing financing and failed to reach an agreement on an installment contract alternative. The lessee sued for specific performance of the option or an installment sale, while the lessors counterclaimed for possession, arguing the option was not properly exercised and the lease was forfeited. The district court denied specific performance, finding the option unexercised, and the lessee's subsequent motion for rehearing was denied. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the notice of appeal was untimely under K.S.A. 60-2103 because the motion under K.S.A. 60-260 did not toll the appeal period, and further rejecting claims that the lessee's attorney improperly interfered with settlement efforts between the parties.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the widow of a millwright who suffered a fatal heart attack after pushing heavy equipment approximately 900-1,000 feet on the job. Lower tribunals denied benefits under the heart amendment to the Kansas Workmen's Compensation Act, finding that the exertion was not unusual when measured against the duties of millwrights generally. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory standard requires comparing the exertion to the individual workman's own prior work history rather than to the occupation as a whole. Because the deceased had never moved the equipment that distance before, the court concluded as a matter of law that the precipitating exertion was unusual and directed entry of an award.

labor & employment

In Foster v. Maynard, inmates in protective custody at the Kansas State Penitentiary appealed the denial of habeas corpus relief under K.S.A. 60-1501, claiming they were housed in the east wing of the Adjustment and Treatment Building instead of the north wing, resulting in unequal access to privileges like church attendance, radio use, employment, and exercise, in violation of due process and equal protection. The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the housing assignment was an administrative classification decision based on behavior and work history rather than a disciplinary measure, with no significant differences in privileges or due process requirements for such classifications. It further ruled that habeas corpus was not the proper vehicle for claims involving forced savings accounts and that prison employment decisions under K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 75-5211 were discretionary and not subject to judicial second-guessing in this context.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved an appeal by Gary Dean Hoskins from his conviction for unlawfully possessing a firearm with a barrel less than twelve inches in length within five years of a prior felony conviction, in violation of K.S.A. 21-4204(1)(b). The defendant had been found guilty after a jury trial where evidence showed he carried a .38 revolver during a confrontation at his brother-in-law's house following an argument. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury instructions on intoxication and possession were not clearly erroneous, that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the Oregon felony conviction which the parties had stipulated was a felony, and that there were no lesser included offenses because the elements of carrying a concealed weapon differ from those of the charged possession offense.

criminal lawguns

This case was a civil battery action in which plaintiff Jarrold Ayers sued defendant Todd Christiansen for striking him in the face with a beer glass during a 1973 tavern incident, causing the loss of his left eye; the defendant claimed self-defense after the plaintiff allegedly initiated an assault. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that defense counsel violated a pretrial order excluding references to the lack of criminal prosecution and improperly suggested the defendant was uninsured. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding no violation of the exclusionary order and that any indirect references to insurance were not reversible error because the defendant's financial condition was relevant to the punitive damages claim.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the conviction of defendant Donald L. Holthaus on one count of criminal damage to property valued over $50 and two counts of temporary deprivation of property, arising from a suspected burglary at an automobile dealership in Hiawatha, Kansas, on November 9, 1975. Police detained Holthaus after observing his suspicious behavior near the scene and while driving a vehicle without authorization; they later arrested him after verifying inconsistencies in his statements and physical evidence linking a damaged car to the crime. Holthaus appealed, arguing that his initial detention and subsequent arrest lacked probable cause and that evidence obtained should have been suppressed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the initial stop was a permissible investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion under precedents like State v. Boone and Terry v. Ohio, and that probable cause for arrest developed once his account was disproven.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by the widow and children of a deceased construction worker against his employer and insurer, seeking maximum death benefits under the Kansas Act. The dependents challenged the constitutionality of K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 44-510b(j), a set-off provision reducing state death benefits by half the amount of concurrent federal social security death payments, on due process, equal protection, and contracts clause grounds. The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the statute as constitutional, ruling that the offset rationally prevented double recovery of benefits, that distinguishing death benefits from disability benefits did not create an irrational classification, and that no impairment of contract rights occurred. The court affirmed the reduced award and denial of attorney fees assessed against the defendants.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

This case was a criminal appeal by defendant Vincent Hernandez from his jury conviction in Kansas for possession of burglary tools. The defendant challenged the trial court's admission of physical evidence (a paper sack, pry bar, and gloves) on chain-of-custody grounds, the admission of a police officer's opinion testimony regarding the pry bar's use, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court acted within its discretion because the arresting officers positively identified the items with no claim of alteration, the officer's opinion was rationally based on his experience, and the evidence was sufficient under precedent from the co-defendant's related case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Roy E. Ames's appeal from his jury conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm with a barrel under twelve inches, following a prior felony burglary conviction. Police had seized the gun and holster from his wife's apartment via a search warrant issued while he was in jail. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the search warrant was valid despite undisclosed hearsay in the supporting affidavit because the information was accurate and did not undermine probable cause; the holster was properly seized as it was described in the warrant; psychiatric evaluations and court observations supported the trial court's finding of competency to stand trial; and the Florida prior conviction journal entry confirmed counsel's presence, allowing its use under the Habitual Criminal Act.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

In State v. Fisher, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for indecent liberties with a child and aggravated sodomy after his 11-year-old stepdaughter recanted on the stand the statements she had made to police about the alleged incidents. The trial court allowed two deputies to testify about the prior statements under the hearsay exception in K.S.A. 60-460(a), ruling that the stepdaughter and her mother were turncoat witnesses available for cross-examination, and also admitted evidence of the defendant's prior crimes or bad acts. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the admission of the prior-crimes evidence violated K.S.A. 60-455 and was prejudicial, while upholding the use of the hearsay exception for the turncoat witnesses after careful judicial review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a divorced husband's efforts to terminate alimony payments and quash garnishment for past-due amounts after his ex-wife allegedly entered a common-law marriage or cohabited with another man. The Supreme Court of Kansas affirmed the district court's denial of the motions. The court held that no common-law marriage existed because the evidence failed to show a present agreement to marry between the ex-wife and the other man, prior rulings on the issue were res judicata, and Kansas law provided no basis to terminate alimony for cohabitation alone when the original decree made payments contingent only on death or remarriage. The court further noted that the trial court retained power to modify alimony under statute but found no grounds for modification here.

family lawprocedure

This case was an original mandamus action by Larry Rogers, the certified senator-elect for Kansas's 21st District, against the Secretary of State to compel her to call his name at the December 1976 preorganizational Senate meeting after the incumbent filed an election contest. The court granted the writ and ordered the Secretary to read Rogers's name from the State Board of Canvassers' certified list of members-elect. The court reasoned that K.S.A. 1975 Supp. 46-143, which excludes contested "candidates" from the meeting, does not apply to certified "members-elect," and that the filing of a contest does not alter the canvassing board's determination until the Senate itself acts after convening; this construction avoided any constitutional conflict with the related statutes governing elections and organization.

elections

This case involved an appeal by Janice Griffin from her jury conviction for selling marijuana in violation of Kansas statute. The defendant challenged the trial court's jury instructions, arguing that it should have defined the term 'sale,' instructed on the lesser included offense of delivery of marijuana, and included the word 'intentionally' in the aiding and abetting instruction. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the failure to define 'sale' was not prejudicial because the common meaning favored the defendant, that delivery was not a lesser included offense since it requires proof of an additional element, and that the instructions as a whole adequately informed the jury on the element of intent despite the omission. The court reasoned that only errors substantially prejudicing the right to a fair trial warrant reversal.

criminal law

This case involved an appeal from a jury conviction for aggravated robbery arising from a masked holdup at a Wichita market in 1974. Police stopped the defendant near the scene based on a description and prior knowledge of him, conducted a pat-down, observed incriminating items in plain view inside his car, and later used a post-Miranda statement he made after requesting counsel for impeachment at trial. The defendant challenged the stop and search as lacking probable cause, the admission of certain evidence and the statement, the consolidation of two robbery charges, and the denial of a requested jury instruction. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the initial stop was lawful under the state stop-and-frisk statute, the evidence was properly obtained or admissible, the inconsistent statement could be used for impeachment under federal precedent, and no error occurred regarding the instruction request.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an appeal by Ed Brown from his jury conviction for aggravated robbery in Sedgwick County, Kansas, where he challenged the admission of fingerprint evidence and the denial of pretrial discovery of a composite drawing of the robber. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that Brown's arrest was supported by probable cause based on witness descriptions, accounts placing him near the scene with an accomplice, a matching gun found during a search, and his clothing matching the robber's, making the fingerprints admissible as they were obtained during lawful detention. On the discovery issue, the court determined that while the trial court should have allowed inspection of the composite drawing, its denial was not an abuse of discretion requiring reversal because the defendant was still able to effectively cross-examine the identifying witness at trial using other evidence like lineup photos and description variances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a post-divorce dispute over child support payments and visitation rights, where the father was initially ordered to pay $25 per week but payments were reduced amid ongoing conflicts, and the court later terminated support without notice to the mother after she allegedly denied visitation. The mother sought a contempt citation for unpaid support seven years later. The court denied the contempt motion, finding the prior termination order stood despite lack of notice, but remanded for possible enforcement of enforceable past-due judgments and reinstatement of current support if the child remained a minor. The reasoning centered on the continuing nature of the support obligation through minority, the equitable limits of laches in such cases, and the need to determine which payments remained valid and enforceable.

family law

This case involved the conviction of Maudry Ambler for theft through welfare fraud under Kansas statutes for willfully failing to report social security payments received on behalf of her son while obtaining Aid to Dependent Children payments from the state, resulting in an overpayment of about $900. The defendant was found guilty after a jury trial and sentenced to one to ten years, later probated with restitution required. On appeal, the court affirmed the conviction, holding that the constitutional vagueness challenge to the statute was not preserved, that the mandatory reporting forms clearly required disclosure of all household income including social security as "other income," and that any irrelevant evidence admitted about the son's paternity was harmless error that did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.

criminal lawfamily lawhealthcare

This case involved an appeal from a jury conviction for possession of a controlled substance (amobarbital) with intent to sell, based on drugs found in a vehicle where the defendant was a passenger. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of the defendant's prior drug possession conviction under K.S.A. 60-455 to prove intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake after balancing relevance, materiality, and prejudice. The court reasoned that the evidence was sufficient to establish knowing possession, given the drugs' location on the defendant's side of the car in plain view, the defendant's statements, and his apparent condition, and that the large quantity, packaging in lots of 100, and expert testimony supported an inference of intent to sell rather than personal use.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an appeal by defendant William A. Motor from his conviction for burglary under K.S.A. 21-3715 after he and three others were apprehended at the scene of a break-in at a Wichita wig shop that had a hole knocked through its wall into an adjoining pharmacy. The defendant raised challenges to the late endorsement of a co-participant as a state witness, the admission into evidence of rubber gloves removed from him at arrest, the specificity of the charging information, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction on an aiding-and-abetting theory. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court had not abused its discretion in permitting the late endorsement without prejudice to the defendant, that the gloves were properly admitted, that the information was adequate, and that the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the state was sufficient to support the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Jerry D. Gordon's convictions for driving while intoxicated, transporting an open container of alcohol, and two counts of vehicular homicide arising from a head-on collision on a rural Kansas road in 1974 that killed the occupants of the other vehicle. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the DWI and vehicular homicide convictions while affirming the open container conviction. The court held that the defendant's blood alcohol test result was inadmissible because it stemmed from an unreasonable search and seizure without proper justification under Fourth Amendment standards established in State v. Brunner. It further reasoned that the vehicular homicide statute requires proof of negligence amounting to a material deviation from the standard of care, exceeding simple negligence, and that the evidence was insufficient to meet this standard without the excluded test results.

criminal lawprocedure