This case is a medical malpractice action brought by parents in federal court against the U.S. Army, alleging that negligent prenatal care resulted in the birth of their permanently handicapped child; the federal district court certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court. The court recognized a cause of action for wrongful birth, holding that parents may recover damages for the extraordinary costs of caring for a handicapped child from birth until the age of majority (or beyond if the child cannot be emancipated), but not for ordinary child-rearing expenses or for the child's own pain and suffering. The reasoning distinguished wrongful birth from the unrecognized tort of wrongful life, limited recovery to expenses directly tied to the handicap based on prior precedent rejecting broader damages in wrongful pregnancy cases, and endorsed use of a reversionary trust to allocate funds for the child's benefit.
This case involved a six-year-old boy injured by a train while running alongside it on his way home from school, prompting a negligence suit against the city, school district, and railroads. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, ruling as a matter of law that a child of that age could not be comparatively at fault. On interlocutory appeal, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that whether a child is negligent is a question of fact for the jury to decide under a standard of care appropriate to children of the same age, intelligence, capacity, and experience. The court rejected any fixed age cutoff, such as the Illinois rule barring negligence findings for children under seven, and remanded for further proceedings.
The case concerned whether a defendant's statement to a Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent was admissible at his trial for rape. The trial court suppressed the statement after finding that the Miranda warnings recited from memory were incomplete, specifically because they omitted advice that the defendant could rescind his right to remain silent at any time and terminate the interview. On the State's appeal of a question reserved, the court held that it could not find error in the trial court's determination of inadmissibility, noting the incomplete warnings compared to standard KBI or FBI versions, the lack of a full factual record on appeal regarding the defendant's circumstances, and the absence of any hurry or need to deviate from proper procedures. The court further declined to entertain the appeal because it would not provide helpful precedent for the uniform administration of criminal law.
The case involved a defendant charged under Kansas obscenity statutes with selling two devices—a vibrator kit and an inflatable doll—to undercover officers at an adult bookstore. The trial court dismissed the charges, ruling that the relevant provisions of K.S.A. 21-4301 were unconstitutionally overbroad, and the State appealed. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute criminalized the distribution and use of devices for legitimate medical and therapeutic purposes, such as treating anorgasmia or urinary stress incontinence through recommended vibrator use in sex therapy and Kegel exercises. The court reasoned that this infringed on constitutional privacy rights in the home and in medical settings, as well as on physicians' and therapists' medical judgment, without adequate exemptions for such non-obscene uses. The decision noted federal recognition of these devices for therapeutic purposes and found the statute's broad prohibition lacking a sufficiently compelling justification.
In State v. Butterworth, the State appealed after the trial court admitted the defendant's hypnotically refreshed testimony over objection in a trial on three counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony theft, resulting in acquittal. The Kansas Supreme Court denied the appeal, holding that posthypnotic recollections of a criminal defendant are admissible when substantial procedural safeguards are followed. The court reasoned that the defendant must establish compliance by a preponderance of the evidence at a pretrial hearing, the trial court properly exercised discretion in finding safeguards were met despite some deviations, and any lack of early notice to the prosecution caused no prejudice due to a recess allowing preparation.
In State v. White, defendant James White was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. On rehearing after the original affirmance, the court obtained and reviewed the previously missing tape recordings of the defendant's statements to Arizona and Kansas officers. The Arizona recording constituted a complete confession, while the Kansas recording was largely repetitive, and both were considered alongside other overwhelming evidence and witness testimony at trial. The court concluded that any error in admitting the Kansas statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore denied the motion for rehearing while affirming the convictions, clarifying that the incomplete appellate record resulted from court officials' failure to transmit the tapes rather than defense counsel's omission.