Carol A. Beier

This case involved consumers suing Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. (Brighton), alleging that its retail pricing policies for handbags and accessories violated the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by constituting illegal vertical and horizontal price-fixing. The district court granted summary judgment to Brighton, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the lower court incorrectly required proof of concrete antitrust injury, applied an inapplicable rule of reason analysis, and erred in dismissing the horizontal price-fixing claim. The court clarified that the KRTA does not follow federal antitrust precedents in all respects, that explicit agreements are not required for liability, and that a three-year statute of limitations applies to the damages claims. It remanded the case for further proceedings, including on class certification issues.

business & regulatory

This case arose from a one-car accident in which defendant Christopher Hughes, driving co-workers to a drilling work site for Duke Drilling, killed passenger Jeffery Wade Scott and injured two others. Plaintiffs, including Scott's surviving spouse, sued Hughes in negligence after settling related workers compensation claims, and a jury returned a verdict against him. Hughes appealed, arguing he was protected by fellow servant immunity under the Kansas Workers Compensation Act. The court reversed, holding that Hughes was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident because his driving was an intrinsic part of his job duties, including being paid for mileage and assembling the crew, so the going and coming rule did not apply. Because his employment status triggered fellow servant immunity under K.S.A. 44-501(b), the civil suits were barred regardless of his eligibility for benefits or intoxication issues, and the judgment was vacated.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

In State v. Peppers, defendant Antwan T. Peppers was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree premeditated murder and one count of attempted first-degree murder arising from a 2006 shooting outside a Topeka bar. Peppers appealed, arguing that the district court erred by admitting evidence of gang affiliation, by giving certain jury instructions on that evidence and the burden of another trial, by allowing the prosecutor’s closing argument to reference facts not in evidence, endorse a witness’s credibility, shift the burden of proof, and express personal opinions on guilt, and by imposing a consecutive hard-50 life sentence based on criminal history not found by a jury. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, holding that the gang evidence was relevant to motive and therefore admissible, that the challenged instructions were not erroneous, that any improper remarks by the prosecutor were not gross and flagrant or the product of ill will and did not affect the verdict in light of the evidence, and that the sentencing claim was foreclosed by prior precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an eminent domain action in which the City of Manhattan condemned three tracts of land owned by Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc., including properties used for a bread business and a meat processing plant; the landowner challenged the district court's $3.5 million compensation award after the appraisers had set a lower amount. The landowner appealed evidentiary rulings that excluded certain expert and lay testimony on valuation, replacement costs, uniqueness of the property, and other matters as irrelevant or remote, as well as the refusal to give two pattern jury instructions on alternative valuation methods. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the district court's evidentiary decisions were proper and that the instructions given correctly reflected K.S.A. 26-513(e) by permitting jurors to consider comparable sales, cost, and income capitalization methods without additional special instructions for unique properties. The core reasoning was that the statute treats the three appraisal methods equally, the excluded evidence did not meet relevance standards, and the instructions as a whole accurately guided the jury on fair market value considering all possible uses.

propertyprocedure

This case involves an eminent domain action in which the Unified Government condemned property owned by Kansas City Mall Associates, Inc., formerly the Indian Springs Shopping Center, leading to a dispute over the amount of just compensation. The owner appealed the district court's $7.5 million award, challenging the admission of documents from a 2005 tax appeal in which the owner's president had valued portions of the property at a much lower total and certain expert appraisal testimony regarding the property's highest and best use. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the tax appeal documents were admissible both as substantive evidence and for impeachment as admissions against interest. The court further reasoned that zoning at the time of the taking is only one factor in determining highest and best use, and evidence of probable rezoning or alternative uses could be considered by the factfinder without violating the unit rule.

propertyproceduretaxes

In State v. Murray, the defendant sought to correct his decades-old convictions for aggravated robbery and felony murder by arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because it never held a required competency hearing after ordering an evaluation under K.S.A. 22-3302. The district court summarily denied the motion, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed that decision and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. The court reasoned that subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time and that an order for a competency evaluation suspends proceedings until competency is determined; because the reconstructed record is silent on whether such a hearing occurred, a factual inquiry is needed to decide if the convictions are void. The court rejected arguments that the claim was waived or already decided in prior post-conviction proceedings, noting those actions addressed different legal issues.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Vicki L. Johnson, who was detained by police investigating a reported burglary in progress and challenged the seizure and search of her cigarette pack, which led to discovery of drug evidence and her conviction for cocaine possession. The Kansas Supreme Court held that Johnson's motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted, reversing the district court's denial and the resulting conviction. The court reasoned that even if the initial seizure of the pack was justified by officer safety concerns under Terry principles and Kansas law, opening and searching inside the pack exceeded the permissible scope once the item was secured and no longer posed an immediate threat, as the pack was not immediately recognizable as contraband or a weapon. The decision emphasized that K.S.A. 22-2402(2) limits officers to holding seized items until questioning ends, without authorizing a general search.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Alex C. Jacobs, who pleaded guilty to one count of off-grid aggravated indecent liberties, one count of severity level 3 aggravated indecent liberties, and one count of severity level 3 criminal sodomy in exchange for the state's agreement to support a departure from Jessica’s Law to the sentencing guidelines grid. The sentencing court imposed a 107-month grid sentence on the off-grid count plus 61 months on each of the other counts, all running consecutively, and Jacobs appealed arguing that Jessica’s Law violated the federal and state constitutions and that the sentences should have been concurrent rather than consecutive. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding that the constitutional challenge could not be considered for the first time on appeal and that Jacobs lacked standing to raise it after receiving a departure, while also ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the consecutive sentencing decision because the sentences were all presumptive and thus not appealable.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hulett, defendant Brandon Hulett was charged with first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault after a shooting at a bar; he initially sought substitute counsel due to alleged communication failures and conflicts with appointed attorney Charles Lamb, but the district court denied that motion. Hulett later accepted a plea deal to felony murder, then filed a presentencing motion to withdraw the plea, which Lamb again represented him on at the hearing. The district court denied the withdrawal motion, finding no conflict or breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. On appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court addressed whether the court had a duty to inquire into potential conflicts of interest that might have deprived Hulett of effective, conflict-free counsel at the plea withdrawal hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a lawsuit by the family of Anthony Stapleton, who committed suicide while in the Shawnee County Adult Detention Center's Close Observation unit for inmates with suicide risk factors. The plaintiffs claimed negligence by guard David Tipton, assistant shift supervisor Matthew Biltoft, and Shawnee County in failing to properly monitor and respond to Stapleton's suicide risk indicators as required by the detention center's suicide prevention policy. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' partial reversal of summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that Tipton and Biltoft owed a duty of reasonable care to Stapleton under K.S.A. 19-1919 and the Restatement (Second) of Torts because they knew or should have known of the suicide risk. The court further held that evidence supported a possible breach of that duty and that the Kansas Tort Claims Act's discretionary function exception did not provide immunity, as the policy imposed mandatory obligations rather than granting discretion.

torts & liability

In State v. Barnes, defendant Anthony Ray Barnes was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and aggravated assault after shooting a QuikTrip clerk in the head and menacing a customer following an argument outside the store. Barnes appealed on five grounds, including the district court's failure to investigate his competency despite diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, the validity of his jury trial waiver, the sufficiency of evidence for the required mental state given his mental health claims, and the sentencing court's reliance on his criminal history and imposition of the high end of the presumptive range without jury findings under Apprendi. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. It reasoned that the competency evaluation and hearing were adequate, the waiver was knowing and voluntary, multiple eyewitness accounts of Barnes's calm demeanor provided sufficient evidence of premeditation and intent to override expert testimony on his mental condition, and the sentencing challenges were foreclosed by prior precedent such as State v. Ivory and State v. Johnson.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Phouthavy Chanthaseng's appeal of his conviction for aggravated indecent liberties with a child based on allegations by his wife's 12-year-old niece. Chanthaseng challenged the exclusion of testimony about statements made by a fellow inmate suggesting possible extortion, the prosecutor's closing arguments referencing a disclosure process and victim credibility, and the lack of a jury instruction requiring a finding that he was 18 or older at the time of the offense. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the inmate statements were inadmissible hearsay, that the prosecutor's remarks did not constitute reversible misconduct, and that the omitted age instruction was harmless error because Chanthaseng's age was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence. The court reasoned that the defense was still able to present its theory to the jury and that precedents supported finding the sentencing error non-prejudicial under the circumstances.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a direct appeal by Lafayette Damon Ester Cosby of his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder following a retrial in Kansas state court. Cosby challenged the exclusion of evidence regarding a question he asked police as hearsay, the denial of a voluntary manslaughter lesser-included-offense instruction, the sufficiency of evidence supporting premeditation, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the excluded statement was properly ruled hearsay, that the facts did not support a voluntary manslaughter instruction, that ample evidence established premeditation, and that the prosecutor's comments fell within permissible bounds. A dissent argued that the excluded statement was non-hearsay circumstantial evidence relevant to self-defense and that its exclusion warranted a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved defendant Jared Race's direct appeal from his jury convictions on multiple counts of rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and aggravated indecent liberties with a child, based on allegations by four young girls including his daughter. Race challenged the admission of hearsay testimony explaining a witness's actions, the admission of child pornography images, the sufficiency of evidence for one rape count, the denial of mistrial motions after a juror saw him in handcuffs, and the lack of a jury instruction on his age being 18 or older. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the hearsay was admitted for a limited non-truth purpose, the images were not objected to at trial, evidence supported the convictions, any jury issues did not warrant mistrial, and the age instruction omission was harmless given unrebutted evidence of Race's age.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the district court's disqualification of attorney Scott J. Mann from representing plaintiff Bariy Venters (later his estate) in a medical malpractice action against defendant Dr. Scott Sellers. The district court disqualified Mann, citing a prior order regarding co-counsel and Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7 on the ground that Mann was a necessary witness due to his earlier role in settling a related auto accident claim. The appellate court reversed, ruling that the district court misapplied the professional conduct rules by not requiring a showing of necessity for the testimony, failing to perform a required balancing test, disqualifying Mann beyond the scope of trial advocacy, and lacking substantial competent evidence to support the decision.

proceduretorts & liability

This premises liability case involved plaintiff Shelly Herrell, an employee of independent contractor Terracon, who was injured when she stepped into a hole obscured by rendering at defendant National Beef's packing plant while performing soil tests. Herrell, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued National Beef for negligence in maintaining a dangerous condition and failing to warn, among other claims. The district court denied summary judgment and allowed the case to proceed to a jury verdict for Herrell, but the Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Dillard v. Strecker. The Kansas Supreme Court held that National Beef owed Herrell the standard landowner duty of reasonable care under the circumstances because the workers' compensation scheme does not displace common-law premises liability to third parties who are employees of independent contractors, but it ruled that any claim based on violation of an OSHA regulation was barred by Dillard and required reversal and remand for further proceedings.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involved defendant Charles Denmark-Wagner, who was charged with felony first-degree murder and related counts arising from a 2008 home invasion and stabbing death during a drug robbery in Pratt County, Kansas. He entered a guilty plea to the murder count under a written agreement that dismissed the other counts and specified a life sentence, but later moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing on grounds that family pressure made it involuntary and that he did not fully understand the sentence. The district court denied the motion after a hearing, and on appeal the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and denial of plea withdrawal, concluding from the plea colloquy and written agreement that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision and lifetime violent offender registration portions of the sentence as illegal under the applicable statutes, because the defendant had only one qualifying conviction and no prior adult convictions triggering lifetime requirements, and remanded for resentencing on the registration period.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a claim by Gabriel Gaumer against Rossville Truck and Tractor Company for injuries from a used hay baler missing a safety shield, which Gaumer's father had purchased 'as is.' Gaumer alleged negligence and strict liability, but the district court granted summary judgment to Rossville on both claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed on negligence but reversed on strict liability, and the Kansas Supreme Court granted review on whether strict liability applies to sellers of used goods. The court held that Kansas law, under the Kansas Product Liability Act and precedent adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A, permits strict liability claims against sellers of used products without distinguishing them from new-product sellers, though sellers have available defenses under K.S.A. 60-3306. It rejected contrary precedents from other states emphasizing differences in used-goods markets and consumer expectations.

torts & liability

In State v. Hall, defendant Christopher Dwayne Hall, after pleading guilty to charges including first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and other felonies stemming from two separate incidents involving violence and a minor victim, sought to challenge his competency to enter the pleas and be sentenced, as well as the district court's failure to advise him of the maximum penalty for first-degree murder. The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed Hall's appeal of his convictions for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that a guilty plea waives the right to appeal without first moving to withdraw the plea in district court. On the sentencing challenge, the court affirmed the sentence after reviewing competency evaluations, including one that found Hall competent despite mental health issues, and determining that no due process violation occurred because proceedings were not suspended under the relevant statute and the record supported competency at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Ho K. Duong, who was charged with aggravated indecent liberties with a child after a six-year-old boy reported being touched inappropriately in a public library restroom. Duong's first trial ended in a hung jury, but he was convicted at the second trial; the district court imposed a sentence below Jessica's Law and added lifetime electronic monitoring. On appeal, Duong raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, failure to give an eyewitness identification instruction, an erroneous Allen-type jury instruction, cumulative error, and improper sentencing. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that the challenged prosecutorial statements and instructions did not require reversal under the applicable standards of review. It vacated the lifetime electronic monitoring portion of the sentence because no statute authorized a sentencing judge to impose that condition as part of postrelease supervision rather than parole.

criminal lawprocedure