John F. Fontron

The case involved defendant Evie Raymond Lohrbach, who was convicted after a jury trial of burglary, felony theft, and felony damage to property based on evidence that he broke into a tavern, stole coins, cigars, mace, and beer, and vandalized coin machines. He was sentenced to consecutive terms under Kansas's Habitual Criminal Act due to four prior felony convictions from 1965. On appeal, the court affirmed the convictions, holding that the prior convictions were admissible under K.S.A. 60-455 to prove intent because the defendant raised an insanity defense that placed his mental capacity at issue. However, the court reversed the sentence, ruling that the four prior convictions entered on the same date could count only as a single prior conviction for purposes of enhancing punishment under the Habitual Criminal Act, and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Piland, the defendant was convicted of two counts of burglary and one count of felony theft after evidence linked him to break-ins at a junior high school, including fingerprints on a vending machine and his presence at a broken window. The court considered whether the three charges should have been tried separately and whether the jury should have been instructed on the value of the stolen property to distinguish felony from misdemeanor theft. It held that joinder was proper because the offenses were of similar character, occurred close in time, and involved the same location. However, the failure to instruct the jury on the value element required reducing the theft conviction to a misdemeanor and remanding for resentencing, while affirming the remainder of the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William J. Anicker, convicted of first-degree manslaughter in the strangulation death of his wife Bertha after a night of drinking, with no eyewitnesses and the defendant claiming he awoke to find her dead. He appealed the conviction, arguing error in admitting testimony about prior domestic violence and a threat to kill the victim, gruesome autopsy photos, unproven references to bloodstains on items from the scene, and remarks by the trial judge about preserving rights on appeal. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, ruling the prior acts evidence was properly admitted under K.S.A. 60-455 to show motive, intent, identity, and absence of mistake or accident in this marital homicide, the photos had probative value without being unduly inflammatory, no timely objection preserved the bloodstain issue, and the judge's comments caused no prejudice.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved the appeal of a defendant convicted of drug-related offenses, including possession with intent to sell and selling marijuana, and conspiracy to sell LSD. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in allowing the late endorsement of a witness since no prejudice was shown and no objection was made at trial. Regarding the jury instructions, the court held that without objections at trial, they become the law of the case unless clearly erroneous, and determined that the instructions on the procuring agent defense and lesser included offenses were not erroneous.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Shawnee Hills Mobile Homes, Inc., a mobile home park operator within Rural Water District No. 6, and the district over water service rates. The park, which had purchased benefit units under the Rural Water District Act, challenged the rates as unreasonable and sought an injunction; the trial court agreed and barred collection of the rates. On appeal by the district, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed that ruling, holding that the Act is constitutional as it provides sufficient legislative guidelines for district operations, financing, and rate-setting while leaving local management details to the board. The court affirmed the cross-appeal and remanded for judgment in favor of the district.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case arose from a dispute in which plaintiff Bates, a construction company, sued defendant Berry, a house mover, for the alleged unauthorized removal and nonpayment for a house purchased from the Missouri Highway Commission, seeking $7,500 in actual damages and $10,000 in punitive damages. After Berry failed to file a timely answer, the trial court entered a default judgment in Bates's favor, but later granted Berry's motion under K.S.A. 60-260 to set aside the judgment on grounds that no supporting evidence had been presented. Bates appealed the order vacating the default judgment. The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an order setting aside a default judgment and permitting the filing of an answer is not a final, appealable order under K.S.A. 60-2102, as the underlying action remains pending in the trial court, consistent with longstanding precedent.

procedurepropertytorts & liability