Kansas Court of Appeals to Hear Oral Arguments at Washburn University, September 20-21, 2011
Washburn University School of Law, the Washburn Law Center for Law and Government, and Washburn University host the Kansas Court of Appeals on Tuesday, September 20, and Wednesday, September 21, 2011 in observance of Constitution Day. Constitution Day is a federally proclaimed day commemorating the adoption of the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787.
- Tuesday's docket will be heard at Washburn Law in the Robinson Courtroom and Bianchino Technology Center.
- Wednesday's docket will be heard at Washburn University's Memorial Union in the Kansas Room.
Hearings both days begin at 9 a.m.
- 105,052 -- John R. Johnson v. Kansas Department of Revenue
- Summary: John R. Johnson appeals the district court's decision affirming the suspension of his driving privileges by the Kansas Department of Revenue following his refusal to submit to alcohol tests. Johnson argues the district court erred in affirming the suspension because the arresting officer failed to satisfy the conditions of K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-1001(b) before requesting an alcohol test.
- Did the district court err in finding that Johnson had been "arrested or otherwise taken into custody for any offense involving operation . . . of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol" pursuant to K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-1001(b)(1)(A) at the time he refused to submit to alcohol tests?
- Did the district court err in finding there were reasonable grounds to believe Johnson had been operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol?
- 105,223 -- In the Interest of C.B.
- Summary: Father appeals the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw the no contest statement he entered in a Child in Need of Care (CINC) proceeding. He argues that the district court, in summarily dismissing his motion, failed to adequately consider his contentions that (1) he was coerced by counsel into entering a no contest statement and (2) there was additional evidence discovered after the CINC adjudication was entered which would necessitate setting aside the adjudication.
- Does this court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a no contest statement in a CINC proceeding?
- Did the district court err in denying Father's motion to withdraw his no contest statement?
- 104,021 -- Ben Frick, Lavelle Frick, et al. v. City of Salina, Kansas
- Summary: In an eminent domain proceeding, the City of Salina purchased real property owned by Ben and Lavelle Frick. In two separate administrative appeals, the Fricks challenged the City's refusal to pay certain moving expenses, professional service expenses, storage expenses, and reestablishment expenses, and refusal to reimburse them for missing and destroyed items. The Fricks appealed the decisions of the administrative hearing officer to the district court, which affirmed the administrative agency. In this appeal, the Fricks challenge the district court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding numerous issues.
- In light of allegations of bias and a claim that the City's witnesses did not testify under oath, were the Fricks given a fair hearing?
- Did the district court err in applying the 1999 version of the applicable federal regulations instead of the 2005 version, as the Fricks argue?
- Does substantial competent evidence support the district court's conclusion that only six business entities were subject to relocation benefits?
- Does substantial competent evidence support the district court's factual findings upon which it based its affirming the City's refusal to pay certain moving expenses, storage expenses, professional fee expenses, reestablishment expenses, emergency medical care expenses and refusal to reimburse the Fricks for missing and destroyed items?
- Were the Fricks denied their constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment to fair and just relocation benefits as a result of the errors alleged on appeal?
- 103,736 -- State v. Robert L. Smith
- Summary: The Geary County District Court convicted Robert L. Smith of possession of cocaine with intent to sell under K.S.A. 65-4161(a) and possession of contraband without a drug tax stamp under K.S.A. 79-5204(a) and 79-5208. Smith appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress cocaine that was found after officers searched his shoes without consent or a warrant.
- Was the frisk of Smith supported by reasonable suspicion that Smith may have been armed and dangerous?
- Did the strong odor of marijuana emanating from Smith and other factors establish probable cause and exigent circumstances to justify officers' warrantless search of Smith's shoe?
- 103,936 -- State v. Jacob Waldrup
- Summary: A jury convicted Jacob Waldrup of two counts of sale of cocaine in violation of K.S.A. 65-4161(a). Waldrup now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, and the district court's limiting the scope of his cross-examination of a State's witness. Waldrup further contends that the State violated his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial and that cumulative error denied him of a fair trial.
- Is sale of cocaine an alternative means crime and, if so, was there sufficient evidence to convict Waldrup of sale of cocaine?
- Did the State's failure to bring Waldrup to trial within 120 days of his arrival in Kansas violate his right to a speedy trial under Article IV of the Agreement on Detainers?
- Did the State's failure to bring Waldrup to trial within 180 days of his request for final disposition of the charges violate his right to a speedy trial under Article III of the Agreement on Detainers?
- Did the State violate Waldrup's constitutional right to a speedy trial?
- Did the district court err in refusing to give a jury instruction regarding confidential informants?
- Did the district court err in limiting Waldrup's cross-examination of a witness regarding her current use of medication?
- Was this a multiple acts case and, if so, did the district court commit reversible error in failing to give a unanimity instruction to the jury?
- Did cumulative error deny Waldrup a fair trial?
- 105,442 -- Kristin L. Wagner v. State of Kansas and Joan Wagnon, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue
- Summary: Kristin L. Wagner filed a declaratory judgment action against the State and the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Revenue (Defendants) regarding the Director of Property Valuation's appraisal directive No. 98-033, which determined that county appraisers may consider a listing price of a property that is for sale as one factor in determining the property's value for Kansas property tax purposes. Wagner argued (1) that appraisal directive No. 98-033 incorrectly determined that listing price could be considered when determining fair market value and (2) that appraisal directive No. 98-033 infringed on her First Amendment right to freedom of speech by creating a chilling effect on her right to list her property for sale at a price of her choosing. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. The district court granted the Defendants' motion, finding the appraisal directive properly interpreted the Kansas statutes on determining fair market value and did not infringe on Wagner's right to freedom of speech. Wagner appeals.
- Did the district court err in finding appraisal directive No. 98-033 was not incorrect?
- Did the district court err in finding appraisal directive No. 98-033 does not infringe upon Wagner's right to freedom of speech?
- Should the district court have granted Wagner's motion for judgment on the pleadings?
- 105,588 -- State v. Neighbors
- Summary: The State of Kansas appeals the district court's decision to grant Justin Neighbors' motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless entry and search of an apartment where Neighbors was staying. At the property owner's request, responding officers entered the apartment to check on the wellbeing of the tenant. Narcotics officers, who arrived minutes later, obtained Neighbors' consent to search his clothing and discovered a bag of methamphetamines. Consequently, the State charged Neighbors with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a school, failure to affix a drug tax stamp, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Before trial, the district court granted Neighbors' motion to suppress all physical evidence obtained from his search or found at the apartment, determining that responding officers legally entered the apartment based on the emergency exception but the narcotics officers unreasonably extended the length and scope of the search by asking to search his clothing after they determined Neighbors had permission to stay in the apartment.
- Did the district court err in granting Neighbors' motion to suppress?