Alfred G. Schroeder

This case is a long-running class action by thousands of gas royalty owners from across the U.S. and abroad against Phillips Petroleum seeking interest on royalties that Phillips held in suspense while awaiting federal regulatory approval for price increases. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kansas could not apply its own law to all claims without violating due process and full faith and credit, the Kansas Supreme Court on remand reviewed the district court's interest calculations. The court affirmed the use of the FPC/FERC corporate undertaking rates for interest up to the date of judgment but held that post-judgment interest must instead follow the statutory rates of the states where the leases are located for claims tied to Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, while applying Kansas's rate to remaining claims. The decision rests on respecting the Supreme Court's mandate and applying the law of the relevant jurisdictions to avoid constitutional conflicts.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

In State v. Armstrong, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder in the 1979 deaths of Don and Norma Earl after three trials, with the prosecution's case relying primarily on the testimony of Cecil Stembridge, who received immunity and directed police to the victims' bodies. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (a police memorandum and FBI field notes obtained during a co-defendant's later trial) and that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder due to lack of evidence of premeditation. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence in question was not material enough to warrant a new trial and that the defense's strategy of denying any participation provided no basis for instructing on second-degree murder under the circumstances. The court also noted a need to correct the journal entry via nunc pro tunc order.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Bennett, the defendant appealed concurrent minimum sentences of five to twenty years for aggravated criminal sodomy and three to ten years for aggravated burglary after pleading guilty, arguing that the trial court failed to sentence him in a way that advanced vocational rehabilitation goals and abused its discretion by not stating on the record the sentencing factors from K.S.A. 21-4606. The Kansas Supreme Court held that it had jurisdiction to review the sentences under K.S.A. 22-3602(a) without requiring allegations of partiality or corrupt motive. The court reasoned that while sentencing judges may recommend rehabilitation measures in the journal entry, the Secretary of Corrections has sole statutory authority over inmate placement and training programs, so any complaint about vocational opportunities was not justiciable on direct appeal from the sentence. On the second issue, the court found no abuse of discretion because the sentences were at the statutory minimum, the presentence investigation report and diagnostic center report addressed the relevant factors, and detailed on-the-record explanations are not required in minimum-sentence cases.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Alexander, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, rape, and aggravated burglary after a jury rejected his insanity defense, raising claims of trial error including the admission of testimony from a jailer who observed the defendant's behavior while in custody and the trial court's refusal to give a full pattern jury instruction on the consequences of an insanity verdict. The Kansas Supreme Court determined that the jailer's testimony improperly referenced the defendant's incarceration in a manner that could undermine the presumption of innocence, but concluded it was harmless error under the state's harmless-error rule because of the strength of the evidence against the defendant. The court further held that the given jury instructions sufficiently directed the jury to focus only on guilt or innocence without inviting improper consideration of disposition or sentencing, and affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Wheaton, the defendant appealed her conviction for aggravated robbery after a jury trial, raising two issues: the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitness identification and its failure to question a juror who had inquired about being excused from service. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that expert testimony on eyewitness identification was properly excluded under the precedent of State v. Warren, which favors cautionary jury instructions over such expert evidence to address potential misidentification risks, including those arising from stress or cross-racial identifications. On the juror issue, the court ruled that the claim was waived because defense counsel had informed the trial court of the juror's inquiry but made no objection or request for questioning during trial, and precedent bars raising known issues of potential misconduct only after an unfavorable verdict.

criminal lawprocedure

In Noble v. State, the petitioner appealed the denial of his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion seeking to withdraw guilty pleas to nine felony counts including burglary, sexual exploitation of a child, attempted sexual exploitation, indecent liberties with a child, and aggravated burglary, on grounds that the arraigning court failed to inform him of the maximum penalties or otherwise comply with K.S.A. 22-3210 at the time the pleas were accepted. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial, ruling that any noncompliance was harmless because the information provided the penalties, the petitioner confirmed reviewing it with counsel, and the record established that the pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made. The court further held that the statute's purpose is satisfied by substantial rather than strict compliance and declined to expand the grounds for post-sentence plea withdrawal beyond those stated in K.S.A. 22-3210(d).

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Barncord, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated robbery, challenging amendments made to the criminal complaint during trial, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and the propriety of jury instructions on aiding and abetting. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that amendments to include felony murder and modify the robbery charge did not introduce new crimes or prejudice the defendant's substantial rights under K.S.A. 1985 Supp. 22-3201(4), as the original complaint was sufficient and the defendant had notice of the issues. The court further ruled that the jury instructions accurately stated the law on criminal responsibility, including language addressing mere presence or association, and were not misleading in light of the defendant's bystander defense.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a tenured teacher's challenge to his termination by Seaman Unified School District No. 345 after he missed school days to attend a religious convocation. Neunzig received a due process hearing under the Teacher Tenure Act where he raised free exercise of religion claims, but he did not appeal the final termination decision to district court; instead, he filed a separate discrimination complaint with the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights under the Kansas Act Against Discrimination. The district court dismissed the KCCR complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that principles of res judicata barred the second proceeding because Neunzig had raised or could have raised the same issues in the tenure hearing, whose outcome became final absent an appeal under K.S.A. 72-5443. The decision focused on the interplay between the two statutory schemes and the need to avoid inconsistent results across forums.

labor & employmentcivil rightsreligious libertyprocedure

The case involved Lonnie Stewart McKibben's appeal from his conviction by a Saline County, Kansas, jury of second-degree murder of a fifteen-year-old girl. The defendant challenged the denial of pretrial motions including on venue, the admission of certain evidence about the victim, the effectiveness of his counsel, and the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to support the conviction. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence—including matching cigarette packages with the same tax stamp, blood stains on the defendant's clothing and shoes consistent with the victim's, and other physical links—was sufficient for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court's rulings on the motions were proper.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the conviction of David Bowers for aggravated battery against a law enforcement officer after he directed his Doberman pinscher dogs to attack police officers attempting to arrest him for a hit-and-run incident. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the dogs were used in a manner whereby great bodily harm could be inflicted, satisfying the elements of the crime under K.S.A. 21-3414(c), and rejecting claims that the statute was unconstitutionally vague or that the dogs could not qualify as deadly weapons. The court also addressed sentencing, finding the order of immediate restitution improper and remanding for correction to specify that restitution information was advisory for the parole authority.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Quintin Bentley, who was convicted of two counts of indecent liberties with a child based on incidents occurring when the victim was nine years old. The charges were filed more than two years after the incidents, raising the question of whether the defendant's threats to the child not to disclose the acts constituted concealment that tolled the two-year criminal statute of limitations under K.S.A. 21-3106. The trial court found that the threats tolled the statute and convicted Bentley on both counts. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that threats do not amount to concealment and that exceptions to the statute of limitations must be created by the legislature, not the courts. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, concluding that the statute's concealment exception does not apply to threats in this context and construing such exceptions narrowly against the state.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Charles F. Strauch, who was convicted by a Shawnee County, Kansas, jury of premeditated first-degree murder and aggravated criminal sodomy based on the October 1984 killing of Lilly Ledford, whose body showed signs of beating, stabbing, and rectal penetration before being placed in a pond. Strauch appealed on multiple grounds, including improper admission of his confession, prosecutorial misconduct warranting a mistrial, inadmissible expert testimony, denial of acquittal on the sodomy charge, failure to instruct on lesser included offenses, and an excessive sentence. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences, holding that the confession was properly obtained after Miranda warnings, the trial evidence supported the verdicts without reversible error, jury instructions were adequate, and the sentences fell within statutory limits without abuse of discretion or constitutional violation. The court reasoned that witness identifications, physical evidence, and the defendant's own detailed account established guilt, while sentencing factors including the crime's brutality justified the outcome.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a contract dispute in which plaintiff George Reed sued defendants Paul Hess, Anne Oliver Hess, and Maxine Oliver for $16,300 after defendants failed to pay for Reed's assignment of his rights under a will, including an option to purchase real estate from the Hennigh estate. The trial court granted Reed's motion for summary judgment on the contract claim and imposed $900 in monetary sanctions on defendants for repeated failures to comply with discovery orders. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reviewed both the summary judgment and sanctions rulings, holding that the sanctions were properly appealable alongside the final judgment and that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment or imposing sanctions, as the undisputed facts showed a valid contract and defendants' willful noncompliance with discovery rules justified the penalties.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves Joan Hodges's conviction for voluntary manslaughter after she shot and killed her husband, whom she claimed had a history of abusing her. Hodges appealed, arguing that the trial court wrongly excluded expert testimony on battered woman syndrome to support her self-defense claim and that the jury instruction on self-defense used the word "immediate" instead of the statutory term "imminent." The Kansas Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was relevant to explaining the defendant's perception of danger in the context of ongoing abuse and that the instruction was clearly erroneous because it improperly focused on the immediate moment rather than allowing consideration of the full history of violence. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, applying its prior rulings retroactively.

criminal lawfamily law

The case involved Jay D. Breazeale appealing his convictions from a Sedgwick County jury on multiple counts including aggravated burglary, aggravated sodomy, attempted rape, and unlawful possession of a firearm, stemming from five separate incidents in Wichita in 1982. The defendant challenged various aspects of the trial, including witness identifications from lineups and photographs, the admission of certain evidence, and the denial of a motion to suppress testimony regarding a police stop. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on the identification procedures, the plain view doctrine for evidence, reasonable suspicion for the stop, and the lack of prejudice from the testimony.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In State v. Holley, the defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated robbery after a joint trial with a codefendant, raising multiple claims including challenges to the admission of evidence, denial of severance and mistrial motions, sufficiency of the evidence, and the related revocation of his probation in a prior case. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and found the probation revocation issue moot. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict, relying on circumstantial evidence such as the getaway car matching the defendant's vehicle, the codefendant's possession of the stolen money and items, and the defendant's ownership and control of the car on the night of the robbery. The court emphasized that it would not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for the jury's assessment of credibility and inferences.

criminal law

In State v. Booze, the defendant was cited for DUI in July 1983, entered a diversion agreement, and was then cited for a second DUI in November 1984 while the diversion was still pending; after the first diversion was revoked, he pleaded guilty to both charges and the trial court sentenced him as a second offender on the later charge. The sole issue was whether entering a diversion agreement constitutes a "conviction" under K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 8-1567(i) for purposes of sentence enhancement. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the statute's plain language expressly includes entering into a diversion agreement as a conviction, satisfying the sequential-relation requirement from State v. Osoba because the diversion preceded the second offense, and therefore affirmed the enhanced sentence on the second DUI conviction.

criminal law

This case involved the appeal of Jack L. Pursley from his conviction for first-degree murder in Butler County, Kansas, after a jury trial. Pursley challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his confession, as well as its refusal to grant a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and comments referencing his decision not to testify. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the confession was properly admitted after valid Miranda waivers and that any prosecutorial errors were harmless in light of the overall strength of the evidence against him. The court also noted that Pursley ultimately testified, mitigating any prejudice from comments about his right to remain silent, and found no basis for reversal under precedents like Griffin v. California.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved landowners suing an oil drilling company and its principal for damages to their crops and land caused by improper drilling practices, including failure to fill pits, remove mud, and restore the surface as required by oil and gas leases. The plaintiffs claimed status as third-party beneficiaries under the drilling contract between their lessee and the defendants. The trial court found the plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries, awarded actual damages of $3,772, and also awarded punitive damages of $1,980. On appeal, the court affirmed the actual damages award, holding that the plaintiffs could enforce the contract terms regarding land restoration and damages, but reversed the punitive damages because the defendants' conduct constituted only a breach of contract without an independent tort involving malice or wanton disregard.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case is a criminal appeal by Thomas P. Bird from his jury conviction for criminal solicitation under Kansas law, for which he received a prison sentence of two and a half to seven years. The defendant raised multiple claims of trial error, including improper admission of hearsay statements by Lorna Anderson, deposition testimony, evidence of the victim's life insurance, the lack of cautionary instructions regarding accomplice testimony, deficiencies in the charging document, and prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. The court reviewed the facts, which centered on testimony from Darrel Carter about meetings where Bird and Lorna Anderson allegedly planned to kill Martin Anderson, and concluded that the trial court committed no reversible errors in its evidentiary rulings, instructions, or handling of arguments. The judgment of conviction was therefore affirmed.

criminal lawprocedure