Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
State v. Berreth
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-06 · cited 62×
In this Kansas criminal case, Rolland Berreth was convicted in 1994 of aggravated kidnapping and three counts of aggravated criminal sodomy; a decade later he filed pro se and counseled motions under K.S.A. 22-3504 and K.S.A. 60-1507 arguing that the kidnapping conviction was multiplicitous with the sodomy convictions. The district court agreed, reduced the kidnapping conviction to simple kidnapping, and lowered the sentence. The State appealed, expressly characterizing the appeal as one on a question reserved under K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3); the Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the original sentence, a ruling later affirmed by a second panel. On review, the Kansas Supreme Court held that the appeal must be treated strictly as a question reserved, which does not permit reinstatement of the original convictions or sentence, and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and ordered the reduced sentence reinstated.
criminal lawprocedure
DOWNTOWN BAR AND GRILL, LLC v. State
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-04-06 · cited 40×
The case involved Downtown Bar and Grill, a Kansas Class B club licensed in 2009, which sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the Kansas Indoor Clean Air Act's exemption from the statewide indoor smoking ban. The exemption applied only to Class B clubs licensed as of January 1, 2009, that notified the state health department, leaving later-licensed clubs like Downtown Bar subject to the ban. The trial court issued a temporary injunction on equal protection grounds, finding the cutoff date arbitrary. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Downtown Bar could not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits because the legislature could rationally have retained the 2009 cutoff date to avoid incentivizing clubs to seek exempt status during consideration of the bill.
business & regulatorycivil rights
In Re Ke
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2012-03-16
The case concerned a Kansas trial court's termination of a father's parental rights to his two minor children after he was unable to attend the hearing in person from Georgia, where he was on lifetime parole following imprisonment. The father requested to testify by telephone or for a continuance, but the trial court denied these requests, finding he had received proper notice, failed to appear despite knowing of the proceeding, and did not establish good cause or compelling circumstances under K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-243(a) for remote testimony due to issues with administering an oath, viewing exhibits, cross-examination, and assessing credibility. The Court of Appeals majority reversed, holding that the denial violated procedural due process, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed that decision and affirmed the trial court, concluding the father received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard and did not meet the statutory standards for telephone testimony. The court determined that the trial judge's findings regarding the lack of good cause and the father's choice not to appear supported the denial, rendering any procedural shortcomings harmless.
family lawprocedurecivil rights
Zimmerman v. Board of County Commissioners
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-10-21 · cited 13×
This case concerns a county board's amendment to its zoning regulations that allowed small wind energy systems but banned commercial wind farms in Wabaunsee County, Kansas. Landowners who had contracted for wind farm development and holders of wind rights sued the board, alleging violations of the Takings Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, along with related claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for inverse condemnation. The court affirmed the district court's rulings that there was no taking of property and no discrimination against interstate commerce. It reversed and remanded the claim that the zoning amendments imposed incidental burdens on interstate commerce that outweighed their benefits, directing the lower court to apply the Pike balancing test and permit further discovery. Related burden-based claims under § 1983 were also remanded.
business & regulatoryenvironmentproperty
State v. Tahah
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-09-30 · cited 46×
In State v. Tahah, the defendant, a former police officer, was convicted by a jury of felony murder and the underlying felony of discharging a firearm at an occupied dwelling resulting in great bodily harm after the shooting death of his ex-girlfriend. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the direct appeal and addressed multiple issues, including whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses of second-degree unintentional murder and involuntary manslaughter. The court held that such instructions should have been given because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, could support a finding of reckless rather than intentional conduct. It reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial on that basis while rejecting or declining to reach the defendant's other claims regarding evidence exclusion, prosecutorial misconduct, and evidentiary admissions.
criminal law
State v. Neal
Supreme Court of Kansas · 2011-08-05 · cited 125×
This case concerns Eric Neal's motion under K.S.A. 22-3504 to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, claiming that his criminal history score was improperly calculated by aggregating three prior uncounseled municipal misdemeanors into a single person felony. The district court summarily denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on both procedural and merits grounds. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by denying the motion without a hearing because the existing record does not conclusively establish whether Neal was advised of and knowingly waived his right to counsel in the 1987 and 1988 convictions. The court reasoned that the journal entries and disposition sheets are ambiguous on the waiver issue and that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve the factual disputes before determining if the convictions could validly enhance Neal's sentence.
criminal lawprocedure