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

In State v. Broadus, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and maiming after he broke into his estranged wife's home during a pending divorce, shot her boyfriend to death, and wounded her in the presence of their child. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the defendant's spontaneous on-scene statements were admissible without Miranda warnings because they were not elicited by interrogation, that the jury instructions properly addressed murder, manslaughter, and justifiable or excusable homicide with appropriate verdict forms, and that evidence of prior threats, the manner of entry with a gun, and the defendant's own admissions sufficiently established premeditation. The decision found no merit in the claims of error regarding evidence, instructions, or the verdict.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved defendant Grabowski's appeal from a jury conviction for unlawful possession of marijuana in violation of K.S.A. 65-2502 after officers stopped his car near a field known for marijuana growth, obtained his consent to search, and found two sacks of freshly cut marijuana on the floor. The court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the search was lawful because the defendant, a mature adult, voluntarily consented without fraud or coercion, that the evidence supported joint possession by the defendant and his passenger as a shared venture, and that the defendant's prior Illinois marijuana conviction was properly admitted to prove knowledge and intent. The court rejected challenges to the search, the imputation of possession, and the evidence ruling, finding the jury instructions on possession accurate and the overall evidence sufficient to uphold the verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a pedestrian struck and injured by a car that backed up unexpectedly, leading to a personal injury lawsuit alleging negligence. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff awarding $28,575 in damages, but the trial court found that jurors had improperly discussed the defendant's probable insurance coverage and attorney fees during deliberations, which prejudiced the defendant's rights, and therefore set aside the damages award while granting a new trial limited to damages. Both parties appealed, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decisions, concluding that the jury misconduct justified a retrial on damages only. The court reasoned that the discussions violated established rules prohibiting consideration of insurance and fees, but the misconduct did not taint the underlying liability finding.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a workers' compensation claim by an employee of General Motors who suffered a back injury while working on an assembly line in 1968. The employer, a self-insurer, had previously filed notices listing the employee as handicapped due to a pre-existing back condition and sought to shift all or part of the liability for the award to the second injury fund under Kansas statutes. The lower courts found the second injury fund was not involved and held the employer solely liable. The court reversed, holding that medical evidence established a congenital pre-existing impairment that caused or contributed to the injury and resulting disability, requiring remand to apportion liability between the employer and the fund under the relevant statutory provisions.

labor & employment

This case involved lessees suing their lessor for breach of a written lease agreement covering a 13.75-acre tract used for cattle feeding operations. The lease included a provision requiring the lessor to notify the lessees of any intent to sell the premises and allow them 15 days to negotiate a purchase. The lessor sold the property to a third party as part of a larger transaction without providing the required notice, leading to a jury verdict awarding the lessees $25,000 in damages based on the difference in fair market value of the tract with and without improvements. The court held that the lease clause created an enforceable right of preemption rather than an invalid option or agreement to agree, that the sale triggered the notice obligation even though it involved an exchange of properties, and that the evidence supported the damages award. The judgment for the lessees was affirmed.

property

This case involved a dispute over priority to $1,000 in proceeds from a public sale of a debtor's farm equipment and other property, between two creditors of defendant Shepek. Production Credit Association held prior perfected security interests under the UCC and had obtained a default judgment, then entered an assignment agreement directing sale proceeds to itself before Rural Gas served a garnishment order on the sale clerk during the auction. The court ruled that Production was entitled to the funds, reasoning that under the UCC its judgment lien related back to the earlier perfection dates of its security interests, and alternatively that the assignment meant the clerk held no funds owed to the debtor at the time of garnishment.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved defendant Larry L. Wheat, who was convicted of grand larceny after stealing a box containing silverware from a car in Johnson County, Kansas, with the assistance of an undercover police officer. Wheat appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on his theory of entrapment, claiming he had abandoned his plan to steal car parts but was lured into the theft by the officer's urgings. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the given entrapment instruction was adequate and the requested additional instruction on abandonment was not supported by the evidence, as Wheat's intent to commit larceny originated independently and he proceeded with the crime. The court reasoned that the officer merely provided an opportunity for the offense after learning of Wheat's ongoing criminal activities, without inducing the original intent.

criminal law

This case involved an appeal by David Thomas Kowalec from his conviction for second-degree burglary and larceny after items stolen from a residence were found in his car and on his person following a traffic stop. The court considered challenges to the admission of evidence of prior convictions, the legality of a vehicle search to which the defendant consented, the sufficiency of evidence identifying the stolen property, and several jury instructions regarding possession of stolen goods, prior offenses, and the defendant's right not to testify. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prior convictions were admissible to show motive and intent under state law, the search was consensual, the evidence was sufficient, and the instructions were proper without shifting the burden of proof or prejudicing the defendant. A prosecutor's remark about the defendant's criminal record was deemed non-prejudicial as the jury was admonished and properly instructed on the limited use of such evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an employee of a trucking company who was injured by a fellow employee driving a truck and sued the coworker, the employer, and the employer's liability insurer for damages. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that its policy excluded coverage for injuries to the employer's own employees and thus imposed no duty to defend the suit or pay any resulting judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of coverage and the duty to defend, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the policy's employee-injury exclusion plainly barred coverage for the plaintiff's claim. The court reasoned that the insurer's obligations were determined by the policy terms and the allegations in the complaint, and that no duty to defend exists where the policy provides no coverage.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves Walter F. Nall's appeal from the denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion to vacate his 1962 life sentence for first-degree murder. Nall had initially pled not guilty by reason of insanity, was examined by a commission of doctors who found him competent to stand trial, and later entered a guilty plea with appointed counsel; he argued that the lack of a psychiatric examination and the court's failure to advise him of his appeal rights violated his constitutional rights. The court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that the voluntary guilty plea waived any right to a jury determination of his mental state at the time of the offense and that no constitutional or statutory duty existed at the time to inform him of appeal rights, particularly given his representation by competent counsel and the absence of any apparent issues to appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a tax foreclosure action in which owners of a mineral interest received only publication notice despite their addresses being easily ascertainable from county records, resulting in a 1963 sale of their interest. More than twelve months after confirmation of the sale, the owners intervened to set it aside on due process grounds. The court held that the twelve-month limitation in K.S.A. 79-2804b does not bar such an attack when service failed to meet constitutional standards, because the owners' addresses could have been discovered through simple record checks and publication alone was insufficient notice. The trial court's ruling voiding the sale was affirmed.

taxespropertycivil rightsprocedure

This case involved a negligence claim by plaintiff Striplin against defendant Kansas Gas & Electric Co. for personal injuries and vehicle damage after her car struck a relocated utility pole in a service station driveway at night. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, finding the defendant negligent in placing the dark pole without warnings and the plaintiff not contributorily negligent, but the trial court granted the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the jury instructions on the utility's duty of reasonable care were proper, the evidence created a factual question on contributory negligence that was correctly submitted to the jury, and the jury's findings were supported by the record, requiring reinstatement of the verdict.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction motion under K.S.A. 60-1507, in which the petitioner sought to vacate his 1965 guilty plea and sentence for first-degree burglary. The petitioner alleged that his confession was coerced, he was denied counsel and rights advisements, and he was promised a lighter sentence, but the trial court rejected the motion without an evidentiary hearing after reviewing the records. The court found that the petitioner had been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings, had knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea as shown by a detailed colloquy, and that his claims were contradicted by the record or unsubstantiated. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the existing files and transcripts conclusively demonstrated no entitlement to relief under the applicable rules. The decision emphasized the petitioner's prior criminal experience and the thoroughness of the original plea process.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a post-conviction motion under K.S.A. 60-1507 filed by Archie Mathues after he pleaded guilty in 1966 to one count of obtaining money under false pretenses. Mathues claimed his privately retained counsel provided only perfunctory representation and that his plea was invalid, but the sentencing court held a full evidentiary hearing and denied relief, finding the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly entered with effective assistance of counsel. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding that the record of the plea proceedings showed full compliance with constitutional requirements and that the trial court's factual findings were supported by the evidence, including counsel's testimony.

criminal lawprocedure