Stephen D. Hill

In Pishny v. Bd. of County Com'rs of Johnson, a coalition of landowners (the No to Annexation Coalition) challenged the Johnson County Board of Commissioners' resolution approving the City of Overland Park's 2007 petition to annex about 15 square miles of unincorporated land, arguing lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, due process violations, and failure to comply with K.S.A. 12-521. The court affirmed the Board's decision granting annexation. It held that the Board retained jurisdiction because it left the record open after the public hearing rather than adjourning sine die, and the statutory seven-day deadline for deciding was directory rather than mandatory. The court further ruled that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings on orderly growth and service extension, that opponents received proper notice and a meaningful hearing, and that the City and Board substantially complied with all annexation statutes.

propertyprocedure

In this case, Kevin Ketzel challenged a Kansas district court's authority to increase his child support obligation for his daughter Alexandra after her mother, Cheri Bradish, moved with the child to Hong Kong in 2008 and Ketzel had relocated to Missouri. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court's modification order, holding that the court lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (K.S.A. 23-9,205(a)). The core reasoning was that Kansas loses modification authority once the obligor, obligee, and child all cease to reside in the state, as shown here by the mother's Hong Kong address, employment, marriage, school enrollment, identity card, and termination of Medicaid, combined with the father's Missouri residence; the mother's assertions of retained Kansas domicile through a driver's license, voter registration, and tax filings were insufficient to establish residency under the Act. The court remanded with directions to transfer the matter to Missouri.

family law

In State v. Behrendt, the defendant pled no contest to felony theft after stealing beer from his employer, a beverage distributor, and the trial court sentenced him to probation with a 45-day jail condition while ordering $7,870.55 in restitution based on the retail value of the stolen beer. Behrendt appealed, challenging both the jail sanction and the restitution amount. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the jail condition as a valid probation term but reversed the restitution award, holding that it must reflect the victim's actual loss. The court reasoned that, under K.S.A. 21-4610(d)(1) and precedents requiring restitution to equal the amount needed to reimburse actual damages without a windfall, a wholesale distributor's loss is measured by wholesale replacement cost rather than retail price, which would improperly include lost profits. The case was remanded for recalculation of restitution using the wholesale value.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bell v. State, Eric Bell was convicted of rape by a jury that included Greg Black, who had a pending rape charge against him in another county but twice remained silent when the prosecutor asked all prospective jurors during voir dire whether they had ever been arrested for anything. Bell filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion for a new trial, which the district court denied on the ground that Bell had not shown the juror’s undisclosed charge had actually affected the verdict. The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a new trial is required when a juror intentionally conceals information on a matter closely related to the case that would have supported a for-cause challenge, even without proof of specific prejudice. The court relied on Kansas precedent (Kerby v. Hiesterman) and federal standards (McDonough) recognizing that such dishonesty undermines the right to an impartial jury, and it applied the Chapman harmless-error test to conclude the State could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the juror’s presence had no effect.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved Abby Ralston, a passenger in a stolen vehicle that crashed during a police chase, who appealed the denial of her motion to suppress methamphetamine found in her purse during a warrantless search of the vehicle. The court affirmed the district court's ruling, concluding that Ralston lacked standing to challenge the search of either the vehicle or her purse. The core reasoning was that a passenger in a stolen vehicle has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the vehicle or items left inside it, particularly where the record contained no admissible evidence that Ralston was unaware the vehicle was stolen, and any claim of abandonment was secondary to the standing issue.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Orloske, the defendant was charged with methamphetamine possession after a traffic stop where an officer, observing him attempting to swallow a baggie of drugs, applied pressure to his throat, bent him over a patrol car, and delivered two knee strikes to the thigh to induce him to spit it out; the baggy was recovered and admitted into evidence over Orloske's objection at trial that the force constituted torture or excessive force requiring suppression. The trial court overruled the objection, found probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the search, convicted Orloske, and imposed probation. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that the actions were reasonable under the circumstances to prevent evidence destruction, caused no injury, were not shocking to the conscience, and did not require suppression where no pretrial motion had been filed and the officer's testimony described only routine measures.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Three Kings Holdings and Cobra Crew sought a declaratory judgment that their modified Texas Hold'Em card game, Kandu Challenge, was not an illegal lottery under Kansas statute, after law enforcement ordered them to stop operating it at a Wichita establishment. The district court denied the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court found that despite the game's added "spread" mechanic allowing players to view and memorize cards before play, the outcome remained predominately determined by chance events such as the shuffle, cut, and card distribution, consistent with precedents holding that poker is a game of chance. The ruling rested on the predominate-factor test for lotteries and evidence that skill elements did not overcome the role of chance.

criminal law

The case involved Carlos Chavez-Aguilar's convictions for second-degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and aggravated battery as an aider and abettor after his brother drove a truck through a crowd outside a nightclub, killing two people and injuring a third, following a gang-related fight. Chavez challenged the admission of gang affiliation evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and several jury instructions. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the gang evidence was properly admitted because it explained the origin of the fight and provided motive for the otherwise inexplicable act of driving through the crowd; the evidence was sufficient to show gross and wanton negligence rather than mere material deviation from the standard of care; and no jury instruction errors occurred, including the denial of a vehicular homicide instruction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether El Gaucho Steakhouse or Christensen was liable under workers' compensation law for injuries Ernest Trevizo suffered while constructing a table at the restaurant site. The Workers Compensation Board held El Gaucho responsible, and the court of appeals affirmed that determination. The court found that Trevizo was hired and paid by Sacco (El Gaucho's owner), received daily instructions from him, and that the table-building work fell outside Christensen's trade or business under the two-part Hannah test, so K.S.A. 44-503(a) did not shift liability to Christensen. Evidence showed Christensen's role was limited to architectural and certain construction oversight duties for the building owner, not interior furnishings. The appeals court therefore upheld the Board's order without finding substantial evidence supporting El Gaucho's contrary position.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Robert Silhan, who was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence and two counts of aggravated battery after causing a head-on collision that killed two people and injured two others. Silhan pled guilty, received a sentence of 82 months in prison after his request for a departure to probation was denied, and later moved to withdraw the plea on grounds that it was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent due to cognitive issues and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by allegedly pressuring him to plead. The district court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the record showed Silhan understood the plea, counsel's advice was reasonable given the lack of any viable defense, and there was no manifest injustice warranting withdrawal under K.S.A. 22-3210(d).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Claudie Gray, who was convicted by a jury of one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and three alternative counts of fleeing and attempting to elude a police officer. Gray appealed on the ground that the trial court failed to follow the procedure in K.S.A. 22-3421 by not asking the jury in open court, after the verdict was read, whether it was their verdict before discharging the jurors. The Court of Appeals held that this omission was reversible error because the statute mandates the inquiry to confirm unanimity even when polling has been waived, and the court had only asked the foreperson whether a verdict had been reached. The court therefore reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Cornerstone Homes sold a mobile home to the Skinners on credit, taking back a mortgage on their real property as collateral; after the Skinners defaulted on payments, Cornerstone sued to foreclose. The Skinners defended and counterclaimed on the ground that Cornerstone's failure to deliver the manufacturer's statement of origin (MSO) required by K.S.A. 58-4204 constituted fraud that voided the sale and mortgage, and they also asserted violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. The district court granted judgment to Cornerstone on the foreclosure and dismissed all of the Skinners' claims. On appeal the court held that the statute does not make nondelivery of the MSO fraudulent as a matter of law or void the transaction, and that the Skinners had not shown any KCPA violation arising from the nondelivery. The judgment was therefore affirmed.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Herman Temes against Dr. Joseph Galichia after a heart catheterization procedure allegedly caused injuries requiring further surgery. Temes dismissed his initial lawsuit and refiled it four months later, after which the district court dismissed the second suit on statute of limitations grounds. The appellate court reversed, ruling that Galichia had waived the statute of limitations defense by actively participating in the first lawsuit through requesting a screening panel and engaging in discovery without raising the defense over 16 months. The court further held that once waived, the defense could not be asserted later, and that the plaintiff's former attorneys had standing to intervene and appeal due to their interest in the outcome.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Adams, the defendant appealed his jury convictions on six counts related to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine, raising challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress a search warrant, a jury instruction on prior drug use, sentencing for possession of lithium metal rather than drug paraphernalia, and the use of criminal history to enhance his sentence without jury findings. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences in full. It held that the search warrant affidavit provided sufficient probable cause based on the informant's statements and officer observations, the jury instruction was proper, the statutes for lithium possession and paraphernalia created distinct offenses justifying the higher sentence, and Kansas precedent permitted judicial use of prior convictions without Apprendi violations.

criminal lawprocedure

In this workers' compensation appeal, Steven Conrow sought modification of a prior award after his condition from repetitive use of vibrating tools at Globe Engineering worsened due to his arthrogryposis, rendering him unable to perform jobs despite applications. The administrative law judge and Board found him permanently and totally disabled based on evidence of unemployability, including medical testimony, and applied a presumption from injuries to both upper extremities. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the award, holding that substantial competent evidence supported the Board's findings when reviewing the record as a whole, that Conrow's own testimony did not contradict the conclusion of unemployability, and that the employer failed to preserve its argument regarding the statutory requirements for arm amputations. The court applied the modified standard of review under the Kansas Judicial Review Act without reweighing evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Johnson, the defendant appealed his misdemeanor DUI conviction after a sobriety checkpoint stop, challenging the district court's denial of motions to dismiss and suppress evidence. Johnson argued that the destruction of the officer's field notes, failure to preserve a breath sample, lack of probable cause for the breath test, inadequate foundation for the Intoxilyzer 5000 calibration, and admission of certification documents without live witnesses violated his rights. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the notes were accurately transferred without bad faith, the breath test foundation was sufficient under state law, the certifications were not testimonial under the Confrontation Clause, and any issues went to the weight rather than admissibility of the evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a Wichita police officer's claim for service-connected disability retirement benefits after he twisted his knee exiting a patrol car while on duty and later suffered an ankle injury at home when the knee buckled. The Board of Trustees denied the application under Charter Ordinance 205, finding the injuries did not meet the ordinance's definition of a service-connected disability resulting from external force, violence, or an act of duty, and the district court granted summary judgment to the Board. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance required proof of a qualifying service-connected disability rather than merely an injury occurring while on duty, that the administrative record was sufficient for review despite procedural issues, and that workers' compensation principles did not apply to the city's retirement system. The court rejected the officer's estoppel argument based on the workers' compensation stipulation and found no evidence of an external force or act of duty causing the injuries.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Delacruz, the defendant appealed his conviction for aggravated battery with great bodily harm arising from a domestic altercation in which he was accused of punching, stomping, and choking his wife. The court of appeals reviewed claims of improper judicial and prosecutorial comments but focused on the jury instructions for aggravated battery and the lesser included offenses of aggravated battery with bodily harm and simple battery. The court held that the instructions were clearly erroneous because they affirmatively misstated that the terms 'great bodily harm' and 'bodily harm' could not be defined and because they incorrectly defined simple battery as involving physical contact rather than bodily harm. Given the district court's own description of the evidence of great bodily harm as 'thin,' the appeals court concluded a real possibility existed that a properly instructed jury would have reached a different verdict. The conviction was therefore reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Kansas Department of Revenue's appeal of a district court order that reversed the administrative suspension of Chelsey Juenemann's driver's license following her arrest for driving under the influence. Juenemann had failed a chemical breath test with a result of .226, triggering a one-year suspension and ignition interlock requirement under enhanced penalties for results of .15 or greater. The district court had agreed with Juenemann that the administrative hearing officer lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the relevant statute limited review to whether the test showed an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statutory language permitting review of test results of .08 or greater necessarily includes results of .15 or greater, so the hearing officer had authority to impose the suspension. The court remanded the case with directions to affirm the administrative suspension.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether the surface landowner (the Schonthalers) could enter a saltwater disposal lease with an oil and gas operator (Paul Bowman Oil Trust) without the consent of the severed mineral rights owner (Dick Properties, LLC). The mineral owner sued after the operator began paying disposal fees to the surface owners under a new agreement, claiming both estates must consent. The district court granted summary judgment to the operator, finding no interference with oil and gas production or mineral rights. On de novo review, the appellate court affirmed, holding that the mineral reservation conveyed only rights to explore, develop, and produce oil and gas; the original disposal agreement ran with the land and was not excepted from the deed transferring surface rights, so the surface owners alone could authorize disposal of saltwater produced off the premises.

property