Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Gilliland
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-11 · cited 73×
Vernon Ray Gilliland was convicted by a jury of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child under 14, an off-grid felony under Jessica’s Law requiring a life sentence. On appeal he challenged the denial of motions to suppress his statements and jail recordings, the exclusion of evidence under the rape-shield statute, the refusal to hold a taint hearing on the victim’s testimony, the giving of an Allen-type instruction, and cumulative error; the Kansas Supreme Court rejected each claim and affirmed the conviction. Separately, the sentencing court denied a departure motion yet imposed a term-of-years sentence under the guidelines rather than life imprisonment, producing an ambiguous and illegal sentence inconsistent with both the statute and the court’s own findings. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, leaving the remaining sentencing issues unaddressed as not yet ripe.
criminal lawprocedure
Stewart Title of the Midwest, Inc. v. Reece & Nichols Realtors, Inc.
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-11 · cited 25×
This case arose as an interpleader action over rights to half of a real estate brokerage commission ($13,802.91) from a residential sale, with listing broker Reece & Nichols Realtors (RAN) refusing to split it with Patrick McGrath, the buyer's agent. McGrath, a licensed Kansas attorney but not a real estate licensee under the Kansas Real Estate Brokers’ and Salespersons’ License Act (KREBSLA), claimed an attorney exemption from the Act’s prohibition on commission-splitting with nonlicensees; RAN argued the exemption did not apply. The district court granted summary judgment to RAN, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the attorney exemption under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 58-3037(c) applies only when an attorney primarily performs services within the practice of law in an attorney-client relationship and consistent with professional duties; here, the commission was earned by producing a ready and willing buyer through brokerage activities, not primarily legal services, and splitting it would conflict with several Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. Consequently, RAN could not pay McGrath any share of the commission.
business & regulatoryproperty
State v. WARRIOR
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-05-11 · cited 121×
Alesia Warrior was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder for the shooting death of her husband, Jeremy Warrior, which occurred while she was driving him to work in 2005; the State alleged she conspired with two others motivated by marital problems and insurance proceeds exceeding $335,000. On direct appeal, Warrior raised multiple claims, including that her hospital statements to police should have been suppressed for lack of Miranda warnings, that the State withheld exculpatory evidence about a key witness’s juvenile record, that hearsay statements by the victim were improperly admitted, that a deadlocked-jury instruction was erroneous, that Kansas’s hard-50 sentencing scheme was unconstitutional, and that cumulative error required reversal. The Kansas Supreme Court rejected each argument and affirmed the convictions and controlling hard-50 life sentence. It held that Warrior was not in custody for Miranda purposes during the hospital interviews, that any nondisclosure or evidentiary errors were harmless or cumulative of other evidence, that the jury instruction and sentencing statute were lawful, and that the overall evidence—telephone records, neighbor observations, forensic details, and the codefendant’s testimony—was strong enough that the asserted errors did not affect the outcome.
criminal lawprocedure
AEROFLEX WICHITA, INC. v. Filardo
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-27 · cited 28×
In Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, Aeroflex sued two former employees and TIC (an out-of-state company) for breach of nondisclosure agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy, alleging that TIC hired the employees to obtain proprietary information and win a U.S. Army contract previously held by Aeroflex. After limited discovery but without an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted TIC’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that a plaintiff facing such a motion need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, with factual disputes viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; under that standard, Aeroflex’s evidence of a conspiracy and related acts in Kansas by coconspirators satisfied both the long-arm statute and due-process requirements of purposeful availment and fair play.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
State v. Adams
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-06 · cited 48×
Kenneth D. Adams was convicted by a jury of six drug-related counts, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of lithium metal with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, arising from a search of his home following his housemate’s traffic stop and statements implicating methamphetamine production. On petition for review, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ rejection of Adams’ claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, gave an improper jury instruction on prior drug use, and improperly used his criminal history at sentencing. The court granted relief on the final claim, however, holding that the elements of possession of lithium metal with intent to manufacture under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-7006(a) are identical to those of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture under K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 65-4152(a)(3), as lithium metal qualifies as “materials of any kind” used in manufacturing; therefore, under the identical offense sentencing doctrine and precedent in State v. Snellings, Adams had to be sentenced at the lower severity level 4 rather than level 2. The court vacated that sentence and remanded for resentencing accordingly while affirming the remaining convictions and sentences.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Snellings
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-06 · cited 40×
In State v. Snellings, the Kansas Supreme Court considered a criminal defendant's challenge to the severity levels assigned to two of his drug convictions at sentencing, based on the identical offense sentencing doctrine. Snellings had pleaded no contest to multiple drug charges, including possession of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture a controlled substance (classified as a severity level 2 drug felony) and manufacturing methamphetamine (classified as a severity level 1 drug felony). The court held that the first offense must be resentenced as a severity level 4 drug felony because its elements are identical to those of the lesser offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, requiring application of the lesser penalty when statutes overlap completely. It rejected the second claim, however, finding that the manufacturing statute's elements are not identical to those of the misdemeanor offense of compounding a controlled substance, and it also denied a separate sentencing issue controlled by prior precedent. The case was remanded for resentencing on the ephedrine count only.
criminal law