Perry L. Owsley

The case involves defendants Smith and Miller who filed a motion for rehearing in a state criminal prosecution, claiming the court misstated the filing date of the complaint in its analysis of their speedy trial claim. The court corrected the record to reflect that the complaint was filed on both January 10, 1975, and September 3, 1975, rather than solely the later date. It denied the motion, however, because the adjustment in dates did not alter the outcome on the speedy trial issue. The court reasoned that the defendants' alleged prejudice arose from the period between the January 6, 1975, offense and their June 1975 notice of the state charges, during which they were tried and sentenced in federal court.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Anita Quenzer sought a court ruling to interpret a clause in the couple's 1971 property settlement agreement, which had been incorporated into their divorce decree, requiring her ex-husband Lloyd to make monthly payments on the mortgage for the home awarded to her until it was fully satisfied. After a second mortgage led to foreclosure and a third party paid off the original mortgage, she claimed the husband owed her the remaining balance. The trial court found the clause ambiguous, admitted parol evidence of the parties' intent, and ruled in her favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contract language was unambiguous and that parol evidence was inadmissible because the agreement was silent on payment by a third party, which was not a vital point contemplated by the parties.

family lawproperty

The case involved defendant Rodney Sanders's convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated assault, and two counts of assault stemming from a 1977 shooting in Kansas City that killed Sol Rosen and involved confrontations with others and police. On appeal, Sanders challenged the jury panel for allegedly lacking sufficient Black representation after the state struck the sole Black juror, the admission of his undisclosed statements to officers, the testimony of a state psychiatrist on his mental state, and the continued use of the M'Naghten insanity standard. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the random, race-neutral computer selection from tax and census rolls showed no systematic exclusion of minorities, that the officers' testimony and expert opinion were properly admitted as they reflected honest professional statements, and that precedent supported retaining the M'Naghten rule rather than adopting the ALI test. A dissent argued for using the ALI standard for insanity determinations.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves an employee suing his employers for wages allegedly withheld without proper authorization between April and October 1972. The trial court dismissed the action as barred by the statute of limitations, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the claim arises from an oral employment contract and is subject to the three-year limitations period under K.S.A. 60-512(1) rather than the one-year period for statutory penalties. The court reasoned that although the employee relied on a statute requiring signed authorization for wage deductions, the action seeks recovery of earned wages, not a penalty or forfeiture. The matter was remanded for further proceedings to determine when the wages were due under the contract.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the appeal of Jerry Wayne Smith and Carol J. Miller from their convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, and three counts of kidnapping stemming from a 1975 bank robbery in Wichita, Kansas. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdicts, holding that the evidence, including witness descriptions, vehicle identifications, and recovered items like bank checks and money bags, was sufficient to support the convictions. The court reasoned that the defendants' challenges regarding identification, search and seizure procedures, jury instructions, and prosecutorial statements did not demonstrate reversible error, as the trial court properly managed these issues and the overall evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Soles, the defendant appealed his convictions for three counts of first-degree murder, one count of aggravated burglary, seven counts of aggravated battery, and one count of aggravated assault arising from a 1976 shooting spree from a downtown Wichita building that killed three people and wounded seven others. The primary issues on appeal concerned whether the trial court properly found the defendant competent to stand trial under K.S.A. 22-3301 despite additional psychiatric reports and observations not presented at the competency hearing, whether certain evidence such as a transcribed police interview was properly excluded for lack of foundation, and whether pretrial publicity denied a fair trial absent a motion for change of venue. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the examining psychiatrist's conclusion that the defendant understood the proceedings and could assist in his defense, that any evidentiary issues caused no prejudice, and that claims of prejudicial publicity could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The court emphasized that all relevant mental health information was ultimately presented at trial and that the statutory competency standard focuses on the defendant's ability to comprehend the nature of the proceedings rather than the absence of mental distress.

criminal lawprocedure