State v. Wendler
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-23 · cited 7×
The case involved the State of Kansas appealing a district court order that suppressed a large quantity of marijuana found in an RV driven by Trever Rhodes Wendler after a traffic stop on Interstate 70 for following another vehicle too closely. The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression and the resulting dismissal of drug charges, holding that the stop was unlawfully extended well beyond the time needed to address the traffic violation. The officer had no reasonable suspicion of drug activity during the initial investigation, instead using stalling tactics and unrelated questioning while awaiting backup. Wendler’s later consent to further questions and a search of the RV was tainted by this prolonged illegal detention, as there were no intervening circumstances to purge the illegality under the totality of the circumstances.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. STAWSKI
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-23 · cited 1×
In State v. Stawski, Thomas Joseph Stawski Jr. was convicted of aggravated intimidation of a witness and criminal threat after he anonymously mailed his Black neighbor, George Carter (a Kansas National Guard member), and Carter’s family materials featuring images of lynched Black soldiers with “KKK” handwritten on them, amid ongoing disputes over Stawski’s dogs. The district court granted the State’s motion for an upward dispositional departure from the presumptive probation sentences to prison terms, based on the statutory aggravating factor that the offenses were motivated in whole or in part by the victims’ race or color. On appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the racial motivation finding because Stawski deliberately selected imagery and references uniquely tied to anti-Black violence and the KKK’s history. The court further concluded that this motivation, combined with the severe emotional distress inflicted on the victims and Stawski’s failure to acknowledge the racist context, provided substantial and compelling reasons to depart from probation.
criminal lawcivil rights
In Re Marriage of Hohmann and Hohmann
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-16 · cited 6×
In the case In re Marriage of Hohmann, the issue was whether lump-sum Social Security disability payments made directly to the children of a disabled father could be applied to reduce the father's past-due child support obligations for the months those payments covered. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that such payments could be credited against the father's arrearages for the specific period from June to December 2008, but not against earlier debts or with any excess applied retroactively. The court reasoned that these benefits are earned by the parent through prior contributions, so crediting them for the corresponding time period fulfills the support obligation without regard to the payment source, consistent with prior Kansas cases and the majority of other states, while treating any overpayment as a gratuity to the child.
family law
Craig v. VAL ENERGY, INC.
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-16 · cited 11×
In Craig v. Val Energy, Inc., a driller employed by Val Energy sought workers' compensation benefits after being injured in a one-vehicle accident while driving home from a temporary shop assignment, where he had been fixing equipment after his usual oil rig broke down. Craig's job required him to pick up and transport crew members in his personal vehicle to and from work sites, for which the company reimbursed his mileage, provided per diem pay, and conditioned his hiring on his ability to drive the crew. The Workers Compensation Board ruled that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment under the inherent travel exception to the going-and-coming rule in K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 44-508(f), rejecting the employer's argument that the commute was non-compensable. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Board correctly applied the law because Craig's travel was an integral job duty providing mutual benefit to the employer, not a standard commute subject to the general rule barring recovery for injuries en route to or from work.
labor & employment
State v. Williams
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012-03-02 · cited 2×
In State v. Williams, the Kansas Court of Appeals addressed how to apply four prior felony theft convictions when sentencing Brian Williams for new theft offenses under K.S.A. 2009 Supp. 21-4704(p) and K.S.A. 21-4710(d). The district court had used three of the priors to enhance Williams’ sentence from presumed probation to presumed prison and counted the fourth in his criminal-history score, which raised his presumptive prison term. Williams argued that the “three or more” language meant all his priors were used for enhancement and thus unavailable for the criminal-history calculation. The court affirmed the sentence, holding that only the minimum number of convictions needed to trigger enhancement are excluded from criminal history, while any excess convictions may be scored, consistent with interpretations of similar Kansas sentencing statutes that seek to account for all prior convictions unless they are specifically used for another purpose.
criminal law
State v. Enriquez
Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2011-11-04 · cited 5×
In State v. Enriquez, Rodolfo Enriquez appealed his convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree murder and possession of cocaine, arguing that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that it could consider his prior crimes or bad acts when deciding the cocaine charge, by failing to give a limiting instruction on that evidence, and by omitting a specific unanimity instruction on the overt acts supporting the conspiracy. The Kansas Court of Appeals held that the prior-crimes instruction was erroneous and that a limiting instruction should have been given, but concluded those errors were harmless. It further ruled that a specific unanimity instruction was unnecessary because the various overt acts alleged in a conspiracy case constitute alternative means rather than multiple acts, the record contained substantial evidence supporting each means, and the jury had received a general unanimity instruction. The court therefore affirmed the convictions.
criminal lawprocedure