Robert H. Miller

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.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawcivil rights

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the State challenging the sentence imposed on Daniel T. Harpool for his third conviction of driving with a suspended license, classified as a Class E felony under K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 8-262. The district court sentenced him to 180 days in county jail and a $100 fine, but the Kansas Supreme Court held that this was improper because the minimum term for a Class E felony is one year of imprisonment in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections, not county jail. The court reasoned that statutes must be read together to effectuate legislative intent, requiring at least five days' imprisonment before parole eligibility, and that specific sentencing provisions control over general presumptive probation rules. It remanded the case for imposition of a lawful sentence, crediting time already served.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a traffic stop for defective taillights where the officer conducted record checks on all passengers without suspicion, leading to an arrest of one passenger on a warrant and a subsequent search of the vehicle that uncovered cocaine and paraphernalia. The trial court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the case against defendant Damm, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the extended detention of the driver and passengers to run checks on everyone was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment because its scope and duration exceeded what was justified by the initial stop, rendering the search incident to arrest invalid and the evidence inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This was a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Bonnie Hammig against Thomas Ford after her husband was killed in a car crash. Ford had pursued another driver, James Brooks, who fled the scene of an earlier collision, and Brooks later caused the fatal accident while speeding through an intersection. The district court granted summary judgment for Ford, finding no material facts in dispute and that his actions did not cause or contribute to the collision as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Kansas Supreme Court reinstated the summary judgment, holding that Brooks fled for independent reasons, Ford had ended the pursuit before the crash, and there was no proximate cause linking Ford's conduct to the harm. The court affirmed that summary judgment is appropriate where reasonable minds could not differ on the lack of causation.

torts & liability

This case involved a priority dispute over Medicaid reimbursement funds owed to a debtor healthcare provider, Hutchinson Health Services, between the Bank of Kansas, which held a perfected security interest in the provider's accounts receivable, and the Kansas Department of Human Resources, which sought to set off the funds against the provider's delinquent unemployment contributions. The district court initially ruled for DHR but later for the Bank after reconsideration; on appeal, the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court addressed whether DHR had a valid setoff right and how priority should be determined under UCC Article 9. The courts held that DHR could exercise setoff rights for taxes accruing before it had notice of the Bank's security interest but not afterward, applying UCC principles to resolve the priority between the setoff and the perfected security interest without granting DHR superpriority under state statutes. The judgment affirmed the Court of Appeals in part, reversed the district court in part, and remanded for computation and distribution of the funds based on the accrual dates of the tax obligations.

business & regulatorytaxeshealthcareproperty

This case involves James N. White's direct appeal from jury convictions in Shawnee District Court for first-degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, based on the killing of John Stacy in a Topeka hotel room. White challenged the admissibility of statements he made to Arizona and Kansas authorities, arguing one was coerced and the other obtained after counsel had been appointed on a related Arizona charge. The court held the Kansas statement inadmissible under Michigan v. Jackson because the offenses were related, but concluded its admission was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming independent evidence including witness identifications, fingerprints, and overheard incriminating remarks. The court also found substantial competent evidence supporting the conspiracy conviction and affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

In Saloga v. Central Kansas Credit Union, the plaintiff sought to recover the amount of a cashier’s check from the issuing credit union after the bank canceled the check at the request of the remitter's wife, despite the plaintiff being a co-payee. The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Saloga, but the Kansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the credit union was not liable. The court reasoned that a financial institution may cancel an unendorsed cashier’s check still in the remitter's possession based on the presumption of nondelivery to the payee, and that constructive notice from a pending lawsuit between the parties does not overcome this presumption or impose a duty to inquire.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case was a class action by Kansas lawyers seeking damages for their prior representation of indigent criminal defendants under the state's pre-1988 Indigent Defense Services Act, which a earlier ruling had found unconstitutional due to inadequate compensation. The district court granted summary judgment to the State, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that no relief was available under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, or 1994, the Thirteenth Amendment's involuntary servitude prohibition, inverse condemnation, unjust enrichment, or a Bivens claim, primarily because the State enjoys sovereign immunity, is not a 'person' under the federal civil rights statutes, and the plaintiffs had not satisfied prerequisites for implied contract claims while Bivens actions do not extend to states. The decision noted that the system had already been reformed by July 1, 1988, as directed in the prior case.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case involved Michael Moppin's convictions for one count of aggravated criminal sodomy and one count of indecent liberties with a child, based on allegations by his five-year-old daughter that he had licked her genital area, with supporting testimony from family members, interviewers using anatomically correct dolls, and therapists. Moppin appealed on grounds including insufficient evidence of penetration for the sodomy charge, failure to instruct on lesser included offenses, and errors in the jury instruction for indecent liberties. The court reversed the aggravated criminal sodomy conviction, holding that the evidence did not prove the required element of any penetration however slight as defined by statute and the jury instruction, but affirmed the indecent liberties conviction because the instructions as a whole properly stated the law and did not mislead the jury. Further prosecution on the sodomy count was barred under double jeopardy principles.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Timothy C. Gonzales's appeal from his convictions for one count of felony murder and one count of attempted rape arising from the August 1986 killing of L.B.W. in a cornfield near Garden City, Kansas. The court recounted witness testimony placing Gonzales with the victim at a county fair shortly before her death, physical evidence including drag marks, a slashed bra, and a knife linked to Gonzales, and observations of a matching car and driver near the scene around midnight. The court affirmed both convictions, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings and that attempted rape does not merge into felony murder because the crimes require proof of distinct elements under the test from State v. Dunn.

criminal law

In State v. Hartfield, the defendant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and aggravated burglary after stabbing Danny O'Day to death, shooting and stabbing his ex-girlfriend Leslie Amar, and breaking into her home. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed claims including the admission of statements to a parole officer, the sufficiency of evidence, and the propriety of a jury instruction on falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which allows jurors to reject all or part of a witness's testimony if they find the witness lied about a material matter. The court held that any errors were not prejudicial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, including eyewitness accounts contradicting the defendant's self-defense claim and medical testimony disproving his version of events, and affirmed the convictions. The decision emphasized that the trial court properly exercised discretion in jury instructions and that the evidence supported the verdicts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a challenge to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike the only two black potential jurors in the trial of Kenneth W. Hood for aggravated kidnapping, burglary, robbery, and rape. After remand from an earlier appeal applying Batson v. Kentucky retroactively, the trial court held a hearing and found the prosecutor's reasons for the strikes—based on the jurors' responses regarding the burden of proof and prior acquaintance with the defendant—to be racially neutral. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the strikes complied with Batson requirements and that the defendant had no right to be personally present at the post-trial hearing, as his counsel was present and the proceeding was not a critical stage.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case was a personal injury lawsuit by a nine-year-old student against a Kansas school district after he was hit by a car while crossing a busy road to his home, long after getting off his school bus on the opposite side of the street. The trial court granted summary judgment to the district, and the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the district breached no duty to the plaintiff, as statutes and regulations imposed no obligation to unload students only on their home side of the street, require crossing in front of the bus, or monitor crossings after the bus departed, especially where the driver had no knowledge of the student's residence or plans. The district had established stops on both sides of the road and notified parents of options, leaving selection to parents.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a natural father's appeal from a Shawnee District Court ruling that he had failed to assume parental duties for two consecutive years, thereby allowing his ex-wife's new husband to adopt the two children. The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that there was substantial competent evidence supporting the findings that the father had not provided child support or maintained meaningful contact with the children. The court reasoned that the father's minimal efforts were incidental and that his failure to fulfill parental obligations preceded and was independent of the mother's denials of visitation.

family law

This case involved an original action by the Kansas Attorney General to determine the constitutional validity of Substitute for House Bill No. 2492, a 1989 law that reapportioned the state's representative districts based on the latest census and adjusted for certain military personnel and students. The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the legislation as valid under both the state and federal constitutions. The court reviewed objections concerning district compactness, contiguity, county divisions, and potential political impacts on incumbents, concluding that the plan met constitutional standards for equal population and that political considerations inherent in redistricting did not constitute invidious discrimination. The court emphasized that it could not substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature in drawing district lines.

elections