Robert H. Kaul

The case involved John L. Rupe, who was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree felony murder and aggravated burglary for breaking into his former partner's home and fatally shooting her. Rupe appealed, claiming error in the admission of evidence about a prior violent incident, the giving of a felony-murder instruction where the underlying felony was aggravated burglary, and the refusal to instruct the jury on criminal trespass as a lesser included offense. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the evidentiary ruling, upholding the felony-murder instruction under existing precedent because the burglary was complete upon unlawful entry with felonious intent, and rejecting the lesser-included-offense claim because criminal trespass is not a lesser included offense of aggravated burglary. A dissent argued that the felony-murder doctrine should not apply when the intent element of the burglary overlaps with the homicide.

criminal law

The case involved James L. Reed appealing his jury convictions for rape and aggravated kidnapping, where the victim identified him as the perpetrator after being abducted at knifepoint, driven to a field, and assaulted. Reed challenged the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification, the admission of evidence about an unidentified pubic hair and a witness's sexual history with him, and the sufficiency of the evidence overall. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the expert testimony was properly excluded because it concerned matters within the jury's common knowledge and experience and would not materially aid them, that the challenged evidence was relevant to explain the source of the hair sample, and that substantial evidence including the victim's identification, description of the car, and physical evidence supported the verdict. The court applied K.S.A. 60-456(b) and precedents limiting expert opinions that invade the jury's role in assessing credibility.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved disputes over the estates of Gertrude Thompson and Kenneth E. Thompson, including the validity of their wills and competing claims by heirs and beneficiaries. The parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims, but after the original will of Kenneth Thompson was discovered, the district court set aside the agreement on grounds of mutual mistake of fact and denied summary judgment to the appellants. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the settlement was a family agreement where the parties knowingly assumed the risk that the missing will might be found, and such agreements are favored by law and not disturbed absent fraud or other inequitable conduct. The core reasoning was that the possibility of the will's discovery was a known uncertainty at the time of settlement, not a basis for rescission.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between landowners (Isemans) and Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (KG&E) over damages to land and crops caused by heavy equipment during core drilling operations pursuant to a written agreement allowing exploratory bore holes. The jury awarded $9,000 in damages, but the trial court ordered a remittitur of $3,500, which the plaintiffs accepted. KG&E appealed on grounds including exclusion of evidence about their offer to restore the land and sufficiency of the damage evidence, while plaintiffs cross-appealed the remittitur. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence of damages was sufficient despite not being absolutely certain, that the mitigation evidence was not properly proffered, and that plaintiffs' acceptance of the remittitur barred their cross-appeal.

propertytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case concerned whether flowers grown by Masson, Inc. in individual pots inside an enclosed greenhouse should be assessed and taxed as personal property. The court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals and district court rulings that the potted flowers were personal property subject to taxation. The core reasoning was that the flowers constituted growing crops not attached to the soil and therefore were not improvements to real estate under K.S.A. 79-102, that the business was agricultural but the taxpayer was not a merchant with reportable inventory under K.S.A. 79-1001 et seq., and that no evidence showed unequal assessment compared to similar operations.

taxesproperty

The case involved Jerry Cunningham's convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault stemming from a 1975 robbery of a theater cashier in Topeka, where he was apprehended shortly after with a loaded revolver and cash. Cunningham, who had initially been represented by a public defender, elected to represent himself at trial after the court conducted extensive hearings explaining trial procedures, the risks of self-representation, and confirming his understanding. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by not evaluating his technical legal knowledge before allowing self-representation and that a prosecutor's closing argument was improper. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the constitutional right to self-representation is absolute if knowingly and intelligently waived, that technical legal knowledge is irrelevant to that determination, and that the closing argument issue was not preserved while also being non-prejudicial given that drug intoxication was not a valid defense to the charges.

criminal lawprocedure