WELCOME TO THE TBA 

The key resource for attorneys practicing in Topeka and Shawnee County. 

JOIN 


Upcoming events

<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 
  • 18 Aug 2017 10:28 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: ​

    Appeal No. 108,103: State of Kansas v. Phoebe Shaylor
    The Supreme Court affirmed Shaylor's conviction in Reno County District Court for failure to register as a drug offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Shaylor claimed she should not have been required to register because the requirement was imposed after her original conviction for manufacture of methamphetamine in 2002. In 2007, the Legislature amended the law, imposing the requirement on persons convicted of unlawful manufacture of controlled substances or controlled substance analogs "unless the court makes a finding on the record that the manufacturing or attempting to manufacture such controlled substance was for such person's personal use." Shaylor argued her conviction for failing to register violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution, which prohibits Legislatures from retroactively punishing previously committed crimes. The principal issue for the court was whether registration requirement was punishment for the original manufacture of methamphetamine conviction. A divided Supreme Court held Shaylor failed to demonstrate that it was.
     
    Writing for the majority, Justice Dan Biles noted under existing Kansas caselaw regarding sex offenders that registration was a nonpunitive civil regulatory requirement and not punishment. Based on that precedent, Biles continued, Shaylor needed to make a sufficient evidentiary showing in the district court to prove the prior caselaw was inapplicable to drug offenders. Since Shaylor did not do that, and raised the issue for the first time on appeal, the majority held her constitutional challenge was not valid and affirmed her conviction. Biles was joined in this opinion by Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, and Justices Marla Luckert and Caleb Stegall.

    Dissenting, Justice Carol Beier argued registration requirements were punishment for all offenders and could not be applied retroactively. She was joined by Justices Eric Rosen and Lee Johnson.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 
  • 11 Aug 2017 11:56 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    August 11, 2017

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: ​

    Appeal No. 109,690:  State of Kansas v. Darnell L. Huey
     
    A divided Supreme Court affirmed a Shawnee County District Court judge's order that Huey be required to register as a violent offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The judge imposed the requirement after finding Huey used a deadly weapon to commit robbery and aggravated burglary. Huey claimed the finding should have been made by a jury instead of the judge.
     
    A majority of the court upheld the judge's order because Huey raised the argument for the first time on appeal and did not develop an evidentiary record in the district court to overcome prior caselaw holding the Legislature intended the registration act to be a nonpunitive civil regulatory scheme. The majority noted that under existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent only facts — other than prior convictions — that increase the punishment for an offense must be established by a guilty plea or proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
     
    The majority opinion, written by Justice Dan Biles, held that since registration is presumed not to be punishment, Huey could overcome that presumption only by the clearest proof — which was lacking since Huey did not raise the issue until his appeal. The majority also held a 2016 decision by the court that offender registration was punishment was no longer to be considered viable authority for Huey or other violent offenders. Joining in the majority decision were Chief Justice Lawton Nuss, Justice Marla Luckert, and Justice Caleb Stegall.
     
    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Carol Beier argued the registration requirement's "modern, maximally invasive, maximally pervasive, and infinitely more public incarnation" should be considered punishment. She was joined in dissent by Justice Eric Rosen and Justice Lee Johnson.    

    Appeal No. 110,040:  State of Kansas v. Jason Robinson
     
    In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the court affirmed Robinson's Wyandotte County convictions for aggravated burglary, aggravated battery, and criminal damage to property. In August 2010, Robinson broke into his girlfriend's house, struck her in the face, and threw bricks at her vehicle. On appeal, Robinson claimed his statutory speedy trial rights were violated and cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial However, the court held that Robinson's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated, the State presented sufficient evidence of aggravated burglary, the jury instructions were proper, and any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Appeal No. 108,275: State of Kansas v. Rebecca Wingo
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the opinion in which the court affirmed the Crawford County District Court's order that Wingo is subject to 15 years of registration pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Relying on its recent decision in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017), a majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive and Wingo failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration has a punitive effect on violent offenders Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented.

    Appeal No. 109,671: State of Kansas v. Joseph V. Donaldson
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the opinion in which the court affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's order that Donaldson is subject to lifetime registration pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Relying on its recent decision in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017), a majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive and Donaldson failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration has a punitive effect on violent offenders. Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented.

    Appeal No. 109,689: State of Kansas v. Kevin Addison Hirschberg
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the opinion in which the court affirmed the Shawnee County District Court's order that Hirschberg is subject to 15 years of registration pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Relying on its recent decision in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017), a majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive and Hirschberg failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration has a punitive effect on drug offenders. Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented. 

    Appeal No. 110,472: State of Kansas v. Thomas Burdick
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall authored an opinion in which the court affirmed Burdick's conviction in Riley County District Court for violating the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Relying on its recent decision in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017), a majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive and Burdick failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration has a punitive effect on drug offenders. Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented. 

    Appeal No. 111,226: State of Kansas v. Barbara Annemarie Hill
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the opinion in which the court affirmed the Crawford County District Court's order that Hill is required to register pursuant to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. Relying on its recent decision in State v. Meredith, 306 Kan. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 110,520, filed August 4, 2017), a majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive and Hill failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration has a punitive effect on drug offenders. Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented.

    Appeal No. 111,055: State of Kansas v. David Kilpatrick
     
    Justice Caleb Stegall wrote the opinion in which the court unanimously held that a defendant could not use a motion to correct illegal sentence to argue that the 2007 amendments to the Kansas Offender Registration Act violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. This case originated in Reno County District Court. 

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today. 


  • 04 Aug 2017 10:37 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: ​

    Appeal No. 111,599: Mark Bullock v. BNSF Railway Company
    Bullock sued his employer, BNSF Railway Company, to recover for injuries he sustained after slipping on diesel fuel spilled by a coworke-r. A Wyandotte County jury awarded Bullock $1,720,000 in damages, and BNSF appealed arguing evidence was improperly admitted that BNSF disciplined the coworker. The Supreme Court agreed with BNSF and remanded for a new trial because the evidence of employee discipline was prohibited by state law. A state statute, K.S.A. 60-451, bars evidence of subsequent remedial measures in certain circumstances for public policy reasons. Barring evidence of subsequent remedial measures encourages defendants to remedy hazardous conditions without fear that their actions will be used against them in a lawsuit. The court also held that Bullock's counsel committed error during closing argument by encouraging the jury to decide the case based on subjective feelings of what amounts to justice instead of the rule of law provided in the instructions. Counsel also improperly appealed to community interests by arguing a verdict for BNSF could negatively impact the community. Justice Marla Luckert did not participate in the decision.

    Appeal No. 110,277: State of Kansas v. Marcus D. Reed
    In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the court affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's denial of Reed's motion to withdraw his plea. At the time Reed was convicted of his qualifying sex offense, the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq., required him to register for 10 years. Shortly before Reed's registration period terminated, the Legislature added a provision to the Kansas Offender Registration Act tolling the registration period of an offender who was noncompliant with it. During the 10 years following his conviction, Reed was noncompliant for more than four years, which extended his registration period. During that extended period, Reed pled guilty to two registration violations. On appeal, Reed claimed his plea should be withdrawn because retroactive application of the tolling provision violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. However, the majority held that since Kansas Offender Registration Act registration for sex offenders is not punishment, no ex post facto violation occurred, and the tolling provision retroactively applies to Reed. Justices Johnson, Beier, and Rosen dissented, concluding that the Kansas Offender Registration Act registration is punishment and its retroactive application violates the ex post facto clause. 

    Appeal No. 110,520:  State of Kansas v. Steven Meredith
    In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the court affirmed the Riley County District Court's order that Meredith is subject to the current requirements of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, K.S.A. 22-4901 et seq. When Meredith committed his qualifying drug offense in 2009, the Kansas Offender Registration Act required him to register for 10 years. However, 2011 amendments to the Kansas Offender Registration Act extended his registration period to 15 years. On appeal, Meredith argued that retroactive imposition of the 15-year registration period constitutes punishment, which violates the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. The majority of the court held that the Legislature intended the Kansas Offender Registration Act to be nonpunitive, and Meredith failed to demonstrate by the clearest proof that registration under the act has a punitive effect on drug offenders. Therefore, the majority determined that no ex post facto violation occurred and the 15-year registration period applies to Meredith. Justices Beier, Rosen, and Johnson dissented, concluding that Kansas Offender Registration Act registration is punishment and its retroactive application to Meredith under the 2011 amendments violates the ex post facto clause.

    Appeal No. 114,417: State of Kansas v. Dang Sean
    In a unanimous decision written by Senior Judge Michael Malone, the Supreme Court affirmed Sean's convictions in Sedgwick County District Court for first-degree premeditated murder and kidnapping. The unanimous court concluded that Sean had not properly preserved his argument that the admission of statements he made during an interrogation violated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel; that the prosecutor erred by making comments regarding Sean's retention of attorney and that the court would assume error in the prosecutor's comments regarding an alibi, but that both errors were harmless; that Sean did not properly preserve his arguments regarding erroneous admission of bad act evidence; that the admission of certain statements did not present grounds for reversal because the statements were either not hearsay or their admission was harmless; that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sean's motion for mistrial; that even if the trial judge erred in limiting Sean's cross-examination of a witness, it was not reversible error; and that Sean did not properly preserve his argument regarding improper sympathy evidence. The court ultimately held that the cumulative effect of the actual and assumed errors was not so great as to warrant reversal.

    Appeal No. 113,409: State of Kansas v. Jason A. Jones
    In a unanimous decision written by Senior Judge Michael Malone, the Supreme Court affirmed Jones' convictions in Sedgwick County District Court for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and aggravated kidnapping. The unanimous court concluded that even if the admission of certain forensic test results violated Jones' Confrontation Clause rights, the admission was harmless. Jones also argued that the admission of certain out-of-court statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule was error because the trial judge had not made required findings on the record before admitting the statements. The court held that Jones had not preserved this argument with a contemporaneous objection at trial, and that in the absence of any objection, the court presumed the trial court made any required findings before admitting evidence. Jones also argued the admission of the statements violated his Confrontation Clause rights. The court disagreed, explaining that statements made by coconspirators are nontestimonial and therefore the admission of the statements did not implicate Jones' Confrontation Clause rights.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 


  • 28 Jul 2017 9:49 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: ​

    Appeal No. 112,212: State of Kansas v. John W. Bannon
    The Supreme Court reversed a Court of Appeals decision that had overturned Bannon's conviction in Sedgwick District Court for criminal carrying of a firearm in the lobby of the Wheatshocker Apartments on the campus of Wichita State University.
     
    At issue was a pretrial motion to suppress the gun found on Bannon during a police patdown. The district court judge rejected Bannon's motion. The Court of Appeals panel hearing the case disagreed and held that the motion should have been granted. There was no evidence the officers who had stopped Bannon were actually, subjectively concerned for their safety or the safety of others. According to the panel, such a subjective concern was legally necessary to justify the patdown of Bannon. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the panel applied the incorrect legal framework. An officer's subjective concern for safety is not dispositive on the constitutionality of the frisk. Rather, an officer's subjective fear or belief that a stopped person is armed and presently dangerous is one of the factors to consider in determining the reasonableness of a frisk.
     
    The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to apply the correct legal test and for further proceedings as necessary.

    Appeal No. 111,054: State of Kansas v. David Kilpatrick
     
    In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Reno County District Court's denial of Kilpatrick's motion to correct an illegal sentence, which challenged the retroactive application of the 2007 amendments to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and dismissed in part, concluding it had no jurisdiction to consider the motion. However, the court affirmed on other grounds, holding the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear Kilpatrick's motion but his claim failed as a matter of law because an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 does not include a sentence that allegedly violates a constitutional provision.

    Appeal No. 108,801: State of Kansas v. Joseph V. Donaldson
     
    In an opinion written by Justice Caleb Stegall, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Sedgwick County District Court's denial of Donaldson's motion to correct an illegal sentence, which challenged the retroactive application of the 2011 amendments to the Kansas Offender Registration Act. The lower courts dismissed Donaldson's motion for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court affirmed on other grounds, holding the lower courts had jurisdiction to hear Donaldson's motion but his claim failed as a matter of law because an illegal sentence under K.S.A. 22-3504 does not include a sentence that allegedly violates a constitutional provision.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 


  • 24 Jul 2017 10:34 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    Administrative Order 2017-106 from Chief Judge Wilson.


  • 21 Jul 2017 11:12 AM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: ​


    Appeal No. 114,614: State of Kansas v. Antwon D. Banks Sr.
     
    The Kansas Supreme Court unanimously affirmed Banks' conviction for the premeditated, first-degree murder of Daniel Flores on February 9, 2014, in Wichita. The Supreme Court rejected the defense contention that the State relied on impermissible inference stacking and held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find Banks guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the State's use of circumstantial evidence. In a related issue, the Supreme Court determined that the prosecutor did not commit reversible error during closing argument by arguing facts not in evidence or by relying on unreasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court rejected Banks' claim that he was denied the right to present a defense when the trial court excluded certain photographs depicting written documents for which the defense had failed to offer evidence of authentication. The Supreme Court opined that, without knowing the author of the writings, the excluded photographs were devoid of any relevance in this case.

    Appeal No. 116,447: Shane Landrum v. Hon. Jeffrey E. Goering, Presiding Judge, Criminal Division, Kansas 18th Judicial District; and State of Kansas 

    In an opinion written Justice Marla J. Luckert, the Supreme Court considered an original action in mandamus filed by Landrum against Judge Goering. Landrum is currently in state custody, charged with aiding and abetting first degree murder. Landrum was adjudicated a partially indigent defendant and requested state funding for investigative, expert, and other services under K.S.A. 22-4508. Judge Goering denied the request, concluding a partially indigent defendant was not entitled to state funds for such services. Landrum filed an action in mandamus asking the Supreme Court to order Judge Goering to authorize the requested funds. The Supreme Court interpreted the plain language of K.S.A. 22-4508 to require Judge Goering to hold an ex parte hearing to determine whether Landrum is financially unable to obtain investigative, expert, or other services, and whether the requested services are necessary to an adequate defense. Accordingly, the court issued the writ of mandamus in part and ordered Judge Goering hold a hearing on Landrum's requests.

    Appeal No. 114,005 State of Kansas v. Corey Pollard
     
    The Supreme Court affirmed Pollard's convictions for aggravated robbery and the first-degree felony murder of Paul "Danny" Khmabounheuang. Pollard raised two issues on appeal. First, the prosecutor erred by introducing gang affiliation evidence and misleading the district judge about the grounds for doing so. Second, Pollard attacked the procedures of the court clerk's office in Sedgwick County for handling pro se motions in criminal cases. The court rejected both these arguments. The Supreme Court noted that the State's pretrial proffer of testimony of gang affiliation was completely consistent with the actual testimony at trial. And, without that testimony, the State would not have been able to explain to jurors how Pollard came to be a suspect in the case. Despite Pollard's claim otherwise, his identity was a central issue in the case. The Supreme Court also rejected Pollard's attack of the procedures employed by the court clerk's office for handling pro se motions. Pollard had filed a pro se motion to compel discovery but the district judge never held a hearing on the motion. Despite the lack of hearing, the court held that Pollard had not been prejudiced by the way the motion was handled. The court noted that there was no indication in the record on appeal that any discovery issue surfaced during trial. Nor did Pollard allege that the State failed to provide him with any discovery. At the time Pollard filed the motion, the district judge had already ordered the State to comply with state statutory law and case law on discovery. Before trial, the parties agreed that each had provided the other with all relevant discovery, and the judge acknowledged that the parties had so agreed.

    Appeal No. 111,774: State of Kansas v. Denise Davey
     
    A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision to uphold Davey's convictions for attempted first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of her husband, Dennis Davey. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of K.S.A. 60-460(i)(2), upon which the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule is based, requires that: 1) the out-of-court statement must have been made by one of the coconspirators; 2) the statement of the coconspirator must have been made while the conspiracy was in progress; and 3) the statement must be relevant to the plan or its subject matter. The coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule does not require that the coconspirator's statement be offered to the court by a third person who is not a participant in the conspiracy, and prior case law establishing that requirement was overruled. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the Johnson County District Court did not err in admitting the hearsay statements of coconspirators that were offered through the testimony of another coconspirator.

    Appeal No. 114,168: Midwest Crane & Rigging, LLC v. Kansas Corporation Commission

    After stopping a truck owned by Midwest Crane & Rigging, LLC, a state trooper issued Midwest a fine for failing to register the vehicle under the federal Unified Carrier Registration Act. The truck's only purpose was to provide the crane service. It has a crane permanently attached to its chassis. Determining whether the fine was warranted required analyzing whether the vehicle stopped was transporting "cargo," as the term is defined in the Unified Carrier Registration Act. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the Shawnee County District Court, which had affirmed the fine. The Supreme Court held that a crane permanently bolted to a truck chassis and associated necessary tools do not qualify as cargo, and the truck itself thus does not qualify as a commercial motor vehicle under the Act.  

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 


  • 10 Jul 2017 3:33 PM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decision today: ​

    Appeal No. 116,773: In the Matter of Uchchi Okechukwu Nwakanma

    Uhchi Okechukwu Nwakanma of Houston, Texas, was disbarred from the practice of law in Kansas. Since he was admitted to practice law in Kansas in 2003, Nwakanma only ever practiced law in Houston, Texas. He was never licensed to practice in the state of Texas. The Kansas Supreme Court found that Nwakanma violated several of Texas' Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. It also found numerous violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, such as those relating to competence, diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping of property, termination of representation, fairness to opposing party and counsel, bar admission and disciplinary matters, misconduct, and cooperation. Many of these violations arose during Nwakanma's representation of a defendant charged in federal court with 55 felony counts of health care fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 

    State of Kansas
    Office of Judicial Administration
    Kansas Judicial Center
    301 SW 10th
    Topeka, Kansas 66612-1507
    785-296-2256
    www.kscourts.org


  • 10 Jul 2017 2:29 PM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: 

    Case No. 111,698: State of Kansas v. David Lee Ryce, rehearing

    Case No. 110,393: State of Kansas v. Darwin Estol Wycoff, rehearing

    Case No. 112,009: State of Kansas v. Derick A. Wilson, rehearing

    Case No. 111,401: State of Kansas v. Gregory Michael Nece, rehearing

    In a 6-1 decision written by Justice Marla Luckert, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed its previous rulings in State v. Ryce, State v. Wycoff, and State v. Wilson, that a Kansas statute, which criminalized a DUI suspect's refusal to submit to a warrantless blood-alcohol content test, was unconstitutional.

    State v. Ryce originated in Sedgwick County District Court. State v. Wycoff and State v. Nece originated in Saline County District Court. State v. Wilson originated in Shawnee County District Court.

    The State successfully sought rehearing on those Kansas Supreme Court rulings, which were originally made in February 2016, after the U.S. Supreme Court decided three similar cases from other states in Birchfield v. North Dakota. The U.S. Supreme Court had concluded that warrantless breath tests for DUI suspects were permissible under the Fourth Amendment as a search incident to lawful arrest, though warrantless blood tests were not.
     
    In reconsidering its previous rulings, the Kansas Supreme Court explained that its ruling was based on interpretation of a state statute and was thus insulated from Birchfield. In addition, the North Dakota and Minnesota statutes discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court were distinguishable from Kansas's statute. For example, the Kansas statute required a DUI suspect to submit to a blood-alcohol content test even if he or she was not under arrest, and the Kansas statute was based on implied consent as opposed to some other exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.
     
    Accordingly, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed its previous rulings and held that the Kansas statute criminalizing refusal to submit to a warrantless blood-alcohol content test was unconstitutional. Justice Caleb Stegall dissented both from the original ruling and the ruling upon rehearing.
     
    In a related case, State v. Nece, the Kansas Supreme Court again affirmed a district court's assessment that a DUI suspect's consent to a breath test was involuntary because it was obtained by means of an inaccurate and coercive advisement of the law. Justice Stegall concurred in the result.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 

    State of Kansas
    Office of Judicial Administration
    Kansas Judicial Center
    301 SW 10th
    Topeka, Kansas 66612-1507
    785-296-2256
    www.kscourts.org


  • 26 Jun 2017 1:45 PM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    The Kansas Supreme Court released the following published decisions today: 

    Appeal No. 114,554: State of Kansas v. Daniel Perez 

    In a unanimous decision written by Justice Eric Rosen, the Supreme Court affirmed Perez's convictions in Sedgwick County District Court for first-degree premeditated murder; sexual exploitation of a child; eight counts of rape; seven counts of aggravated criminal sodomy; three counts of aggravated assault; and eight counts of making false information. The charges stem from the State's allegations that Perez had convinced a group of people to live and work with him and then murdered a group member for her life insurance benefit; falsified a number of documents; and raped, sexually assaulted, and sexually exploited a number of the group members' children. The unanimous court concluded that any error in the admission of certain testimony was harmless; that the facts of the case did not support an assisting suicide instruction; that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded the probative value of prior crime evidence outweighed any potential prejudice; and that challenged limiting instructions were not clearly erroneous.

    Case No. 114,052, State of Kansas v. Bruce Julius Ashley Jr.

    Ashley was convicted of one count of first-degree felony murder and one count of attempted aggravated robbery, based on the 2010 shooting death of the owner of a liquor store in Johnson County. On appeal, Ashley challenged instructions given to the jury. He also challenged the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial when, after the conviction, two inmate-witnesses came forward to impeach testimony provided by witnesses for the State. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Eric Rosen held that an informant jury instruction was not appropriate in this case because a witness for the State was not acting as an agent for the State at the time that he learned the information serving as the basis for his testimony. The court further held that the court properly gave the jury a limiting instruction relating to evidence of other crimes, even though Ashley had objected to the instruction. Finally, the court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it discounted the credibility of Ashley's after-the-fact impeachment witnesses and refused to order a new trial. The convictions were affirmed.

    Kansas Court of Appeals decisions released today 

    State of Kansas
    Office of Judicial Administration
    Kansas Judicial Center
    301 SW 10th
    Topeka, Kansas 66612-1507
    785-296-2256
    www.kscourts.org


  • 22 Jun 2017 9:57 PM | Tiffany Fisher (Administrator)

    UPDATE: Appeal No. 113,267: Luke Gannon, by his next friends and guardians, et al. v. State of Kansas

    The Kansas Supreme Court notified lawyers in the above-captioned case to appear by phone for a scheduling conference at 8:30 a.m. Monday to discuss deadlines and identify at least the major issues arising out of the signing yesterday afternoon of Senate Bill 19, the school finance bill. The court will issue a scheduling order later Monday. Counsel were notified early today of the scheduling conference Monday so they have ample time to review and prepare for the call.
     
    Documents in this case are available online at http://www.kscourts.org/kansas-courts/supreme-court/Cases_of_interest/Cases/113267/defaultasp   

    State of Kansas
    Office of Judicial Administration
    Kansas Judicial Center
    301 SW 10th
    Topeka, Kansas 66612-1507
    785-296-2256
    www.kscourts.org


<< First  < Prev   1   2   3   Next >  Last >> 


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software