Lee A. Johnson

Anthony Frye was convicted of severity level 7 aggravated battery after a bench trial in district court. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that Frye had not validly waived his right to a jury trial, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that reversal while also ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court held that the district court neither advised Frye of his jury trial right nor properly accepted a waiver, that the issue could be considered on appeal to prevent a denial of fundamental rights even though it was not raised below, and that Frye's testimony established he intended the physical contact in a rude or angry manner. The case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved James Woods' challenge to an eminent domain proceeding in which the Unified Government of Wyandotte County condemned his property and appraisers issued an award. Woods filed his notice of appeal from the appraisers' report 48 days after it was filed, exceeding the 30-day deadline set by K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 26-508, and argued that the government's failure to properly notify him of the report should extend the time to appeal. The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal. The court held that the 30-day filing requirement is jurisdictional and that neither the district court nor the appellate court had authority to create equitable exceptions or extend the deadline based on alleged notice deficiencies. Any claims regarding improper notice or due process had to be pursued in a separate civil action rather than through the appeal of the appraisers' award.

propertyprocedure

The case involved Jose Portillo's conviction for rape of a child under 14 after he was accused of forcibly raping D.B., the daughter of a woman with whom he had an affair. The State had charged only the on-grid severity level 1 version of the offense rather than the off-grid version subject to Jessica's Law, but the district court treated the omission as a clerical error, found Portillo guilty of the off-grid felony, and imposed a 240-month departure sentence. On appeal, the court held that the charging document was fatally defective for the off-grid offense because it omitted the essential element of the defendant's age, depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to convict or sentence under that provision. The court found sufficient evidence to support conviction for the on-grid version of rape and therefore affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing under the applicable guidelines grid box.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joshua Coman, who pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal sodomy involving a dog and was ordered by the district court to register as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act due to the sexually motivated nature of the act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that Coman was not required to register. The core reasoning was that the legislature intentionally omitted misdemeanor criminal sodomy from the list of per se sexually violent crimes requiring registration, and the catch-all provision for sexually motivated acts does not apply to crimes specifically excluded from that list; the court applied principles of statutory construction including the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguities in favor of the defendant.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a traffic stop of a vehicle suspected of transporting methamphetamine, where officers detained the driver for about 75 minutes to obtain a search warrant and then recovered drugs and paraphernalia during the search. The district court suppressed the evidence, ruling that the officers had probable cause but no exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search because obtaining a warrant beforehand was practicable. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed that decision, holding that under the Fourth Amendment the automobile exception permits a warrantless vehicle search based solely on probable cause due to the vehicle's inherent mobility, without needing any additional showing of exigency. The court relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedents such as Pennsylvania v. Labron and Maryland v. Dyson.

criminal law

In State v. Carapezza, defendants Carapezza and Hughes were convicted of felony murder and related felonies but had their convictions reversed on appeal. On remand, the district court suppressed evidence derived from the defendants' immunized inquisition testimony under Kastigar rules, barring certain prosecutors and witnesses from participating in retrials. The State appealed, arguing incorrect burden of proof and no improper use of immunized statements. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, finding the State failed to prove its case was independent of the immunized testimony, as the investigation pyramid rested on that testimony and led to Paico's plea agreement implicating the defendants.

criminal lawprocedure

LaFarge sought a refund of sales taxes paid on repair parts for loaders and haulers used to transport limestone from a quarry to hammermills at its cement manufacturing facility in Kansas. The Kansas Department of Revenue denied the refund, arguing the equipment was not part of the integrated production operation at the manufacturing plant. The Court of Tax Appeals granted the exemption, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the contiguous quarry and internal haul roads qualify as part of the manufacturing facility where integrated production operations occur under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 79-3606(kk).

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In State v. May, a Kansas trooper arrested Lindsay May for DUI following a one-car accident and requested an Intoxilyzer breath test after she completed a preliminary breath test. May agreed but provided an insufficient sample that the machine registered as .156, which the trooper treated as a test refusal; May immediately asked to retake the test while still under observation, but the trooper denied the request. The district court suppressed evidence of both the refusal and the deficient sample result, ruling that May had validly rescinded her refusal under Standish v. Department of Revenue. On the State's interlocutory appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, finding a valid rescission and holding that State v. Gray required suppression of all references to the breathalyzer testing proceedings once the refusal was cured.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a Kansas eminent domain proceeding in which KDOT condemned property owned by Glacier Development Co., L.L.C., an LLC whose sole member was Lester Dean. After appraisers awarded $2.19 million and KDOT appealed, a jury determined the property's value was only $800,000, leading the district court to enter a personal judgment against Dean for the excess award already paid to the LLC. Dean challenged the judgment, arguing he was never properly named or served as an individual defendant and that the LLC's corporate form protected him from personal liability. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to impose personal liability on Dean for the LLC's debt and that prior rulings on the issue did not bar review under res judicata or law-of-the-case doctrines.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In State v. Cash, the defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under Jessica's Law and received concurrent hard-25 life sentences with lifetime postrelease supervision. On appeal, Cash argued that overlapping parole eligibility statutes required application of the rule of lenity to make him eligible for parole after 20 years rather than 25, and that the postrelease supervision portion of his sentence was improper. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the 25-year mandatory minimum based on the specific language of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 22-3717(b)(5) and prior precedent in State v. Chavez, but vacated the lifetime postrelease supervision because off-grid indeterminate sentences under the statute require lifetime parole instead. The court treated the sentencing issues as reviewable despite not being raised below and distinguished parole from postrelease supervision for grid versus off-grid crimes.

criminal law

This case involved a stepfather's petition to adopt two minor children without the consent of their biological father, who was imprisoned after pleading guilty to felony child abuse in the death of another child under his care. The district court found the father's consent unnecessary based on his failure to assume parental duties for the two years preceding the petition, terminated his parental rights, and granted the adoption. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the district court, holding that evidence of the father's minimal financial support and limited contact with the children, along with consideration of the children's best interests and the father's fitness, supported the termination and adoption. The court noted the father's prison wages and disability payments were insufficient to meet support obligations, and his indirect contacts did not demonstrate assumption of duties. Procedural issues regarding the father's participation by telephone were also upheld as satisfying due process.

family lawprocedure

The case involved Patrick Naputi, convicted on seven counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child under 14 based on allegations that he inappropriately touched six boys, five of whom were students in a class where he worked as a paraprofessional. On appeal, Naputi challenged his convictions due to alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments and the denial of a modified jury instruction on nullification, and he challenged portions of his sentence including lifetime electronic monitoring and lifetime postrelease supervision as cruel and unusual punishment. The court affirmed the convictions, determining that the prosecutor's comments did not deny a fair trial and that the standard burden-of-proof instruction was appropriate. It vacated the lifetime electronic monitoring requirement because sentencing courts lack authority to impose it under the relevant statute, which reserves that power for the parole board. The court declined to review the constitutional challenge to lifetime postrelease supervision because the issue was not adequately raised or preserved in the district court.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Marquis, the defendant appealed the revocation of his probation for failing to complete a required boot camp program, arguing that the district court violated his confrontation rights by relying on an affidavit from his supervising officer instead of live testimony at the revocation hearing. The Kansas Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation does not apply to probation revocation proceedings because they are not criminal prosecutions, and the parallel provision in the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights likewise does not extend to such hearings. The court determined that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires application of a two-factor good cause test before admitting hearsay evidence in revocation hearings, and reversed and remanded because the district court had considered only the reliability of the affidavit without evaluating the state's explanation for not producing the witness in person.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved Will A. Wimbley’s second K.S.A. 60-1507 motion challenging his convictions for first-degree premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm, based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to object to or properly raise issues regarding the prosecutor’s closing argument about premeditation, along with a request for DNA retesting on the murder weapon. The district court summarily denied the motion as successive and untimely and rejected the DNA request because no DNA evidence had been presented at trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding grounds for a new trial and directing a pretrial hearing on the DNA issues. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the motion did not qualify for an exception based on an intervening change in the law and that retesting the weapon alone could not produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence under the applicable statute. The court remanded remaining issues to the Court of Appeals.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Cory Saylor against his employer Westar Energy for a knee injury caused by repetitive trauma from his job duties over many years. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the date of the accident was March 28, 2006, the date Saylor provided written notice to Westar, and that Westar was liable for Saylor's unauthorized knee replacement surgery costs. The core reasoning was that under K.S.A. 44-508(d), the accident date for repetitive trauma is the notice date when no authorized physician is involved, the notice was timely, and under K.S.A. 44-510j(h), the employer must pay for medical expenses if it knew of the work-related injury but failed to provide treatment. The Board and courts found substantial evidence that Westar had knowledge of the injury prior to the surgery.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Whorton, the defendant appealed after pleading guilty to multiple counts of aggravated criminal sodomy and aggravated indecent liberties with a child involving an 11-year-old victim, challenging the district court's refusal to grant a departure from the mandatory hard 25 life sentence under K.S.A. 21-4643(d) despite the parties' plea agreement stipulating his lack of significant prior criminal history as the basis. The court affirmed the district court's sentence. The appellate court reasoned that the district court had reviewed the presentence report, confirmed the criminal history score, explicitly considered the stipulated mitigating factor along with the facts of the prolonged abuse, and properly determined there were no substantial and compelling reasons to depart, as the parties' agreement on the legal effect of the factor was not binding and sentencing decisions must be case-specific.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a royalty owner suing an oil company operator for allegedly improper deductions from royalty payments on natural gas production from a Kansas well, specifically the severance tax attributable to helium extracted from the gas and a conservation fee imposed by state regulation. The plaintiff sought an accounting and repayment for the withheld amounts on behalf of a purported class of royalty owners. The court affirmed summary judgment for the oil company on the severance tax issue, holding that the tax on gas production applies to helium as a constituent of the gas stream under the relevant statutes. It reversed on the conservation fee, ruling that the authorizing statute does not permit assessment against royalty owners who are not well operators, so the fee is an expense of the operator that cannot be passed on by reducing the gross sale proceeds used to calculate royalties.

business & regulatorytaxesproperty

In State v. Fredrick, the State appealed the district court's dismissal of a criminal complaint charging Jamie Fredrick with failing to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) after his 1994 Minnesota juvenile adjudication for sexual conduct involving a child, which required registration in Minnesota until 2018. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that K.S.A. 22-4906(i) did not impose a registration requirement on Fredrick because its plain language applied only to persons convicted of crimes in another state, not those with juvenile adjudications, and the legislature had not amended that provision to cover juveniles despite doing so for the definition of 'offender' in K.S.A. 22-4902. The court reasoned that it could not judicially rewrite the statute to align with broader legislative purposes and that the rule of lenity required resolving any ambiguity in favor of the accused, so the State failed to establish probable cause for the failure-to-register charge.

criminal law

In Hall v. Ford Motor Credit Co. LLC, Dennis Hall sought an injunction to stop Ford Credit from repossessing his truck after he received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge that eliminated his personal liability on the loan, even though he continued making payments and Ford Credit retained its security lien. The district court denied the injunction and ruled that Hall was in default under the Kansas Uniform Consumer Credit Code, K.S.A. 16a-5-109(2), finding that the prospect of payment, performance, or realization of the collateral was significantly impaired. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly considered multiple factors beyond the bankruptcy filing itself, including the discharge of Hall's personal obligations, his refusal to reaffirm the debt, and the fact that the truck's value was less than the amount owed. The court concluded there was substantial evidence supporting the finding of default that allowed Ford Credit to enforce its lien rights.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

The case involved D.M.-T., who was adjudicated a juvenile offender following a bench trial for acts that would constitute rape if committed by an adult, and who later sought to set aside that adjudication after the Kansas Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to jury trials for juveniles in In re L.M. D.M.-T. filed a post-adjudication motion arguing his case was not final when In re L.M. was decided and requesting a new jury trial, but the district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code provides no statutory authority to appeal the denial of such a collateral post-adjudication motion. The court reasoned that the right to appeal is purely statutory, the juvenile code limits appeals to orders authorizing adult prosecution or the adjudication/sentencing itself, and D.M.-T. had already exercised his direct appeal rights. It rejected arguments that constitutional claims or comparisons to adult procedures could create appellate jurisdiction where the statute did not provide it.

criminal lawprocedure