Robert T. Price

In State v. Frideaux, the defendant was convicted of attempting to aid a jail inmate's escape by delivering a toothpaste tube containing hacksaw blades, in violation of Kansas statutes on aiding escapes and attempts. On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred by denying his request for publicly funded investigative services to locate a potential witness, by excluding a contradictory unsigned deposition from another inmate, and by admitting the blades without a complete documented chain of custody. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the denial of investigative services fell within the trial court's discretion under the applicable statute and caused no prejudice since the defendant testified about the witness at trial; the deposition failed to meet statutory requirements for use; and the evidence's handling by officers established sufficient chain of custody with no indication of tampering. The ruling emphasized that such procedural requests and evidentiary foundations are evaluated case-by-case based on necessity and compliance with rules.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between neighboring landowners, the Riekes and Olander, over title to a quarter section of land in Leavenworth County, Kansas, north of the Kaw River, much of which had formed through accretion after floods including in 1951. The trial court ruled for defendant Olander, quieting title in his favor and awarding a small sum for fence repair. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Olander and his predecessors had established ownership by open, adverse, continuous, and exclusive possession for more than fifteen years under K.S.A. 60-503, and that such adverse possession extends to subsequently formed accretions. The court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that possession was insufficient and that accretion land should instead be apportioned based on riparian ownership principles, noting that extending the relevant section line produced the same result as the trial court's decision.

property

In State v. Morgan, the defendant appealed his conviction for forcible rape under Kansas law, raising three claims of error. First, he argued the jury verdict was contrary to the evidence because the victim reported the incident later and showed no physical signs of struggle, implying consent; the court held that the victim's testimony created a credibility issue for the jury to resolve and found the evidence sufficient. Second, he challenged the admission of testimony from two other women who described similar forcible rapes by the defendant (one before and one after the charged incident), even though he had not been convicted of those acts; the court ruled the evidence was properly admitted under K.S.A. 60-455 to show identity, intent, motive, and plan, with a limiting instruction given, and that prior convictions or the timing of the other acts were not required for admissibility. Third, he sought a new trial based on alleged juror discussion of his failure to testify; the court held that K.S.A. 60-441 barred inquiry into the jury's mental processes, so such evidence was properly excluded. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wilson v. Aylward, plaintiff Leronzo Wilson sued defendant J.A. Aylward for $200,000 in damages, alleging that Aylward had alienated the affections of Wilson's wife Evelyn through an affair and payments that led to the breakdown of their marriage. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found for the plaintiff and awarded $50,000, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment and directed entry of judgment for the defendant. The court held that an alienation-of-affections claim requires proof that the defendant was the active, controlling cause of the loss of affection and acted with willful, malicious intent to interfere with the plaintiff's marital rights. Here, the undisputed evidence showed that all contacts between Aylward and Evelyn occurred in 1957 while she was unmarried, that subsequent payments resulted solely from her threats of exposure, and that there was no proof of any design by Aylward to alienate her affections after the couple's 1959 remarriage.

family lawtorts & liability

This case involved an action by the administrator of a deceased father's estate and five of his children to invalidate a 1965 deed transferring a half-section of farmland to another son (Emil) and his wife, alleging a confidential relationship and undue influence that rendered the transfer void for lack of consideration. The trial court set aside the deed after hearing testimony from family members about the father's changed mental state post-1963 illness, Emil's increased attentiveness and control over the parents, replacement of prior advisors, and the deed's deviation from the parents' existing will and codicil. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial competent evidence of opportunity, disposition, and effect indicating undue influence exerted in secrecy among family members. The core reasoning focused on the grantee's fiduciary role, the father's vulnerability, and the resulting disproportionate distribution of the estate that undermined prior testamentary plans.

propertyfamily law

This case involved parents suing the Kansas Highway Patrol, the City of Salina, and individual officers for the wrongful death of their son, a hostage killed during a high-speed police pursuit of armed robbers. The trial court dismissed the claims against the governmental defendants, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, adhering to the established doctrine of immunity from tort liability for state agencies and municipalities engaged in governmental functions. The court reasoned that law enforcement activities, including those of the Highway Patrol and city police departments, qualify as governmental functions, and that absent a statute imposing liability, the agencies could not be held responsible for officers' negligence or misconduct; any abolition of the immunity rule is a matter for legislative determination rather than judicial action.

torts & liability