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

This case involved a Kansas criminal prosecution against defendant Henry Royal for two alleged sales of marijuana in November 1973. The trial court granted the defendant's pretrial motion for discharge, finding that the state's seven-month delay in filing charges violated due process because the delay was deliberate, lacked a justifiable explanation, and prejudiced the defendant's ability to recall events and witnesses. On appeal by the state, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that pre-charge delay does not violate due process unless the state intentionally delayed to harass the defendant or gain a tactical advantage. The court adopted the standard from United States v. Marion and United States v. Tager, under which the state's delay here was permissible because it was part of an ongoing undercover drug investigation rather than an improper purpose. The case was remanded for trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1972 intersection collision in Garden City, Kansas, between an 18-year-old motorcyclist and a 17-year-old driver making a left turn, resulting in severe injury to the plaintiff's leg. Both parties alleged negligence by the other, and after trial the jury found each driver negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout, leading the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the defendant, after both sides had rested, to amend the pretrial order to add the lookout issue as a ground of contributory negligence. Under K.S.A. 60-216 a pretrial order controls the issues to be tried and may be modified only to prevent manifest injustice; the late change prejudiced the plaintiff by injecting a new issue without opportunity to prepare or respond. The court remanded for a new trial.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Tommy Allen McKay, who was charged with second-degree murder after a fatal shooting during a drinking party. His first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury deadlocked, with nine jurors favoring voluntary manslaughter and three favoring involuntary manslaughter; affidavits indicated the jury had found him not guilty of second-degree murder. On retrial for the original charge, McKay was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and appealed, arguing that double jeopardy barred the second prosecution. The court held that Kansas law permits retrial after a mistrial for a hung jury and that no acquittal on the greater offense had occurred to trigger double jeopardy protections under statute or precedent. The conviction was affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute between Kansas City Structural Steel Company, a steel manufacturer, and L. G. Barcus & Sons, Inc., a general contractor, arising from the supply of structural steel for a Kansas bridge-widening project. Barcus counterclaimed for breach of contract seeking consequential damages from alleged delivery delays, but the steel company relied on an exculpatory clause in the purchase order that limited its liability for such damages. The trial court entered judgment for Barcus on the counterclaim, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed with directions to enter judgment for the steel company. The court reasoned that the clause was valid and enforceable under the UCC because both parties were experienced commercial entities who had agreed to it, the limitation was not total or unconscionable, and parties are generally free to allocate risks in arm's-length business contracts.

business & regulatory

This case involved a civil suit by plaintiff Loren Carrick against defendant B.J. McFadden for damages arising from an assault and battery that occurred when Carrick and companions entered McFadden's land to hunt coyotes. The jury awarded actual and punitive damages to Carrick against McFadden (after dismissing claims against McFadden's son), leading to McFadden's appeal on evidentiary rulings and Carrick's cross-appeal on costs. The court held that the trial judge erred by excluding evidence of Carrick's character and prior violent acts under K.S.A. 60-446 and 60-447 because such evidence was relevant to McFadden's self-defense claim when the parties were strangers, requiring reversal and a new trial; the cross-appeal was affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying costs. The opinion also addressed procedural requirements for specifying issues in a notice of appeal under K.S.A. 60-2103.

proceduretorts & liability

In State v. Hamilton, the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated battery after a night of drinking led him to shoot and kill an unarmed man who refused his request for a ride and then shoot his companion. Hamilton appealed, arguing that the trial court's jury instruction on the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict was prejudicial and that the evidence was insufficient to prove premeditation or malice. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the instruction properly followed the statutory requirements of K.S.A. 22-3428 and that the circumstances—including the defendant's pursuit of the victim, use of a deadly weapon, lack of provocation, and post-shooting conduct—supported the jury's inference of premeditation and malice.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gregory Freeman's conviction for aggravated robbery of Shakey's Pizza Parlor, where two employees were bound and money plus personal items including a watch were taken; Freeman was arrested nearby with cash and the watch, and identified by the victims via photo, lineup, and voice. On appeal, he challenged the denial of a mistrial motion based on the prosecutor's voir dire questions referencing his right not to testify, an elevator incident, and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. The court affirmed, reasoning that the voir dire did not improperly comment on or penalize the right to silence (which Freeman did not exercise, as he testified), the elevator claim was untimely raised without shown prejudice, and the identifications plus recovered watch provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable inference of guilt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the conviction of defendant Schoenberger for aggravated assault under Kansas law after a street confrontation in Russell, Kansas, involving two groups where the defendant and his companion pursued the Murphy brothers, brandished knives, and made threatening statements, ending when one Murphy retrieved a shotgun. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of one to ten years. It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude witnesses, as no prejudice was shown. The court also ruled that no additional definition of 'intentionally' was required in jury instructions, that a self-defense instruction was properly refused because evidence showed the defendant as the aggressor who pursued the fight, and that no instruction on the lesser offense of simple assault was needed given undisputed evidence of a deadly weapon. The reasoning emphasized the strength of the evidence supporting the aggravated assault charge and the absence of error or prejudice in the trial proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose when the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights issued a subpoena duces tecum to Sears, Roebuck & Co. seeking lists of credit applicants and related credit bureau ratings from a 60-day period, in connection with investigating a complaint that Sears denied credit to an individual because of his race in violation of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. Sears refused to comply and moved to quash the subpoena on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, burden, destruction of some records, and confidentiality. The district court largely denied the motion to quash and ordered production of the available records. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court first determined that the district court's order was final and appealable as of right, then held that the Commission had statutory authority to investigate and issue the subpoena because the Act covers discriminatory credit practices, and that any confidentiality concerns could be addressed through protective court orders. The court affirmed the district court's ruling requiring compliance with the subpoena.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a subcontractor, Tyler, who sued Cowen Construction for unpaid amounts on drywall subcontracts for two projects in Kansas and sought to foreclose mechanics' liens on the properties. After Cowen failed to file timely answers to the lawsuits, default judgments were entered against it. Cowen moved to set aside the defaults, attributing the delay to miscommunication and holiday staffing issues, but the trial court denied the motion, finding the neglect inexcusable, and the appellate court affirmed, noting the company's indifference and the fact that the suit papers had been in its office for nearly a month without action.

procedureproperty

In State v. Mall, the defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and felony possession of a firearm after a store robbery in which a man with a .22 revolver took cash from a register and the manager's wallet. The sole issue on appeal was the admission at trial of the revolver and a sack of coins found during a warrantless search of the defendant's car shortly after the crime. The court decided that the evidence was properly admitted and affirmed the convictions. The core reasoning was that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle because both the car and driver matched the broadcast descriptions, and under Kansas precedent an automobile may be searched without a warrant when there is reasonable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime, regardless of whether the search is incident to an arrest.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned landowners who sued to cancel an oil and gas lease after the assignee operator halted all production upon receiving a state health department order to stop using unpermitted brine disposal ponds and install a compliant disposal well. The trial court found an implied covenant requiring the operator to develop the lease for mutual benefit, gave the operator multiple extensions totaling over six months to drill the required well, and canceled the lease when he instead completed producing wells without providing disposal capacity. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the operator's prolonged inaction and delays after the 1970 cease-and-desist letter violated the covenant despite the opportunities provided. The court also addressed related procedural issues regarding a premature execution sale that was later set aside.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Betty Giddings, who was convicted of forging and uttering a check under K.S.A. 21-3710 after cashing a $20 check signed in another person's name at a grocery store. On appeal, she challenged the legality of her arrest due to lack of testimony before the magistrate, alleged unreasonable delay in appearing before the magistrate, and argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on theft by unauthorized temporary control as a lesser included offense. The court held that the complaint supported probable cause for the warrant, the arrest was valid based on the officer's knowledge including a witness identification, and the weekend delay did not invalidate the proceedings. It further ruled that temporary deprivation of property is not a lesser included offense of forgery because their elements do not overlap under K.S.A. 21-3107(2). The judgment affirmed the forgery conviction but reversed the uttering conviction and remanded to vacate it.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the conviction of Curtis James for assault, battery, and rape stemming from an incident where he and others stopped a car driven by Sharon Mong and her sisters, leading to James forcing her into a truck and having non-consensual intercourse. The court affirmed the convictions on all counts. It reasoned that the assault and battery charges were based on separate acts in a driveway distinct from the rape that occurred later, so they were not lesser included offenses and did not bar the rape conviction. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of potential juror bias claims during voir dire.

criminal lawprocedure