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

Eastern Distributing Co., Inc. sued former employee Terry Flynn to enforce non-disclosure and non-compete covenants in an employment contract after Flynn left to work as a route salesman for a competitor and began serving the same customers. The trial court granted an injunction barring Flynn for one year from disclosing Eastern's customer information and from working in a similar role for competitors in Atchison, Douglas, Leavenworth, and Wyandotte counties. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that the covenants reasonably protected Eastern's investment in training and its valuable customer relationships developed through the employee. The court found the restrictions limited in time and geography and supported by the employer's legitimate business interests rather than an improper restraint on trade.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Gary M. Miller, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder in the death of his wife after a retrial on a first-degree murder charge stemming from a house fire where her body was discovered. The defendant appealed on multiple grounds, including the second trial judge's adoption of prior rulings on motions without reargument, the authority of certain officials to act, the admission of autopsy evidence without a coroner's inquest, and the trial court's refusal to give requested jury instructions on the cause of death. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the journal entry showed proper handling of motions, de facto officer challenges must be brought directly rather than collaterally, an inquest is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and the instructions given adequately stated the law and elements based on the evidence of strangulation. The court found no reversible error in any of the claims raised.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Richard L. Dodson, convicted after a bench trial of promoting prostitution under K.S.A. 21-3513 based on undercover officers' contacts with him via a business card for entertainment services. Officers called numbers on the card, spoke with Dodson about sending girls for payment, visited his apartment where multiple women were present, and heard him use explicit language offering sexual activity, though no actual solicitation or prostitution occurred on site. Dodson denied the key statements and claimed the calls concerned dancing. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the testimony and circumstances constituted sufficient evidence of either maintaining a house of prostitution or soliciting a patron, without requiring an overt act or precise statutory phrasing.

criminal law

The case involved defendant Wilfred Mantz's appeal from a jury conviction for first-degree murder under K.S.A. 21-3401 after he shot and killed John Sharp with a high-powered rifle, admitting the shooting but contesting premeditation. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of repeated prior threats by the defendant to kill Sharp was sufficient to establish premeditation. The court also rejected claims of procedural error, ruling that the defendant's absence from an in-chambers conference on jury instructions did not violate K.S.A. 22-3405 because it was not a critical stage of the trial where final decisions were made or rights were affected, and found no merit in challenges to the prosecutor's statements or other evidentiary issues.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant David L. Mims's appeal from jury convictions for aggravated battery and attempted aggravated robbery arising from a December 1974 tavern shooting during a robbery attempt. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting claims of error in the denial of a mistrial after an officer's inadvertent reference to prior crimes, the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to call alibi witnesses, the exclusion of prior-trial transcript testimony due to insufficient proof of witness unavailability, a juror's remote prior acquaintance with a witness, and an ex parte note from the judge instructing the jury to continue deliberating. The court reasoned that the officer's statement was unforeseeable and cured by the trial court's admonition, the prosecutor's remarks were fair comment, unavailability was not established under the reasonable-diligence standard, the juror relationship was too attenuated to affect fairness, and the note lacked coercive elements and caused no prejudice given the eyewitness evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was a negligence action in which plaintiff Thomas Orrin Frevele, a building contractor, sued truck driver Bernard McAloon and his employer for personal injuries sustained while unloading building materials at a construction site. The plaintiff was pinned against a house wall by sliding particle board after the truck bed was raised, and the jury awarded him damages of $5,585.20. Defendants moved for a directed verdict on grounds of contributory negligence as a matter of law and also challenged the admission of certain witness testimony and evidence of lost earnings as violating the pretrial order, but the trial court overruled these motions and submitted the issues to the jury. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the reasonableness of the plaintiff's actions under the circumstances presented a factual question for the jury and that defendants were not prejudiced by the evidence presented. The court further noted that the plaintiff had not admitted facts establishing contributory negligence as a matter of law.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from probate proceedings in the estate of Esme Cellars, who had executed a 1965 will leaving a $20,000 bequest to Pittsburg for a scholarship fund and the residue to Baker University. After her brother's death, Cellars made a $40,000 inter vivos gift to Pittsburg's endowment association to establish the scholarship fund during her lifetime and also conveyed a farm to a cousin as referenced in the will. The probate court found that the lifetime gift was intended to satisfy and adeem the testamentary bequest, but the district court ruled on appeal that the gift and bequest were separate. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent—including statements, surrounding circumstances, and attempted will changes—is admissible to determine whether ademption by satisfaction occurred, and remanded for a new trial on all issues.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a worker's compensation claim by Cleveland Crow against the City of Wichita after he was injured when a sanitation truck rolled back and pinned him against a dock, causing abdominal injuries and a hip fracture. The trial court reversed an award of 50% permanent partial disability, finding no permanent disability arising from the employment, and also ruled against the claim for failure to pay compensation promptly. The appellate court affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the trial court's findings, primarily from the treating physician's testimony that there was no back injury related to the accident and any disability was attributable to alcoholism rather than the work incident.

labor & employment

The case involved defendant Moore Childers, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for shooting and killing his neighbor, James Frost, after Frost approached the defendant's bedroom window following a dispute over children bothering the defendant's dogs. This was the second trial after the prior conviction was reversed for failure to instruct on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter. On appeal, the defendant argued errors including the trial court's refusal to give a self-defense instruction. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence did not support a self-defense claim because the defendant's testimony showed no facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe he was in imminent danger, and there was no other reversible error in the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an interlocutory appeal by the state from a trial court order suppressing wiretap evidence obtained under the 1974 Kansas authorized eavesdropping act in two separate drug conspiracy prosecutions. The trial court ruled the Kansas statute unconstitutional because it omitted the 90-day inventory notice requirement of federal Title III (18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d)), rendering it more permissive than federal law and requiring suppression under precedents such as State v. Farha. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the missing provision violated federal minimum standards, that suppression was mandated by the statutory scheme without a prejudice showing, and that later legislative amendments did not retroactively validate the evidence.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved Steven Charles Sanders, who was convicted after a bench trial of possessing marijuana with intent to sell, based on evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, contending that the affidavit supporting the warrant was insufficient and contained material inaccuracies about the officer's knowledge of a confidential informant. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the affidavit was sufficient on its face to establish probable cause and that any inaccuracies were not deliberate or material enough to undermine its validity. The ruling adhered to prior Kansas precedents limiting attacks on the truthfulness of search warrant affidavits.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned Crawford County's suit against the surety on former county treasurer Gene Masterson's official bonds to recover $59,500 that Masterson had embezzled during his successive terms. The trial court ruled that the three-year statute of limitations for actions on statutory liabilities applied and, based on the parties' stipulation, barred recovery for losses in 1969 and 1970. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that stipulations on pure questions of law do not bind the court, that a cause of action on the bonds accrued at the end of each term when the treasurer was required to account, and that the county could therefore recover for the 1970 shortages as well.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Henson, the defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder after evidence including a bloody palm print matching his at the scene, autopsy photographs, and testimony about a similar prior incident with another woman was presented at trial. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal, holding that the challenged evidence was either properly admitted under relevant evidentiary rules or that any potential errors, such as limited cross-examination references, were harmless in light of the defendant's own testimony and the overall strength of the case. The court reasoned that the palm print identification, forensic testimony on the cause of death, and other investigative findings sufficiently supported the jury's verdict without reversible prejudice to the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dalton Holt's appeal from jury convictions on two counts of selling LSD and one count of selling marijuana, based on purchases made by an undercover KBI agent in Coffeyville, Kansas. The defendant denied the sales and presented witnesses, including family members, who contradicted the agent's account of the transactions and meetings. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the agent's detailed testimony was sufficiently corroborated by physical evidence, vehicle records, and the defendant's own admissions about times and places, creating a reasonable basis for the jury to infer guilt. The court further ruled that challenges to witness credibility and evidence weight are for the jury, not appellate review, and found no merit in the unpreserved claim of racial bias in jury selection due to lack of evidence of systematic exclusion.

criminal law