TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case originating in Ellis County this month in Topeka.

According to the Office of Judicial Administration, the case of the State of Kansas v. David Darrel Williams will be heard by the Supreme Court on Dec. 13.

Williams was arrested in September 2012 on suspicion of distribution of methamphetamine.

According to the Office of Judicial Administration, Williams was involved in a controlled buy with an undercover agent, who was wearing a recording device. Over Williams’ objection, the Ellis County District Court admitted the audio recording into evidence at the trial. Williams was convicted of distributing meth.

“Issues on review are whether the district court properly admitted the audio recording of the drug transaction and whether Williams’ criminal history was proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt,” the OJA said.

Below is the entire amended docket for the Kansas Supreme Court.

———-

AMENDED
9 a.m. Monday, December 12, 2016

Appeal No. 114,850: Adam Pener, et al. v. Michael S. King, Secretary of Transportation

Wyandotte County: (Civil Appeal) The Kansas Department of Transportation acquired, through eminent domain proceedings, real property owned by Pener and the Alexander Gold Revocable Trust. The property was used in a highway improvement project. The landowners challenge the district court’s rulings regarding compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) landowners are entitled to recover their attorney’s fees and expenses as part of their litigation expense reimbursement; 2) landowners are entitled to recover the cost to replace a security fence that KDOT removed; and 3) landowners were awarded just compensation for their property.

9 a.m. Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Appeal No. 113,409: State of Kansas v. Jason A. Jones

Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) A jury convicted Jones of aggravated kidnapping and first-degree premeditated murder or alternatively felony murder. Jones received a hard-25 life sentence for murder and 165 months for aggravated kidnapping. Issues on appeal are whether the trial court: 1) violated Jones’ rights under the Confrontation Clause when it admitted the results of the blood tests without requiring the testimony of the chemist who conducted the tests; and 2) erred by admitting hearsay statements under the co-conspirator’s statement exception. The court will also consider whether cumulative err denied Jones a fair trial.

Appeal No. 114,417: State of Kansas v. Dang Sean

Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) A jury convicted Sean of first-degree premeditated murder and kidnapping. Sean received a hard-25 life sentence for murder and 77 months for kidnapping. Issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in: 1) failing to grant Sean’s motion to suppress; 2) admitting hearsay evidence and in denying a mistrial; 3) admitting irrelevant and highly inflammatory sympathy evidence; and 4) denying Sean the ability to confront a witness for the state. Also, whether it was prosecutorial misconduct for the prosecutor to introduce bad act evidence and whether the breadth of prosecutorial misconduct denied Sean a fair trial, and whether cumulative err denied Sean a fair trial.

Appeal No. 111,046: State of Kansas v. David Darrel Williams

Ellis County: (Petition for Review) Williams was involved in a controlled buy of methamphetamine. The undercover agent was wearing a recording device and recorded the entire interaction. Williams was convicted of distributing methamphetamine. The district court admitted the audio recording into evidence at trial. Issues on review are whether the district court properly admitted the audio recording of the drug transaction and whether Williams’ criminal history was proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Appeal No. 110,982: State of Kansas v. Marlon T. Hardy

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Hardy was charged with aggravated battery after he shot a man that was part of a group that had surrounded Hardy’s car. Hardy filed a motion asserting self-defense immunity. The judge granted Hardy’s motion for immunity and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed because the district court did not hold an evidentiary hearing and Hardy had not resolved evidentiary conflicts that were in the state’s favor. Issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals applied the appropriate standard of review in conducting a hearing under the immunity from prosecution statute (K.S.A. 21-5231) by viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state and resolving all conflicts against a finding of immunity.

9 a.m. Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Appeal No. 114,351: State of Kansas v. Louis Cotton

Wyandotte County: (Criminal Appeal) This case is an appeal from the district court’s denial of Cotton’s pro se motion to set aside a void judgment some 16 years after the convictions. The district court found Cotton’s motion was time-barred and was also past any deadline for post-conviction relief. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Cotton’s motion to set aside a void judgment.

Appeal No. 112,513: State of Kansas v. Matthew R. McDaniel

Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) McDaniel was convicted of felony murder and aggravated robbery. Issues on appeal are whether the district court violated McDaniel’s right to be present at a critical stage of the trial and whether the jury instructions were clearly erroneous.

Appeal No. 112,212: State of Kansas v. John W. Bannon

Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Bannon was convicted of criminal carry of a weapon after it was reported that Bannon would tell people he worked for homeland security, carried a gun, and interrogated people. Officers found Bannon and searched him. They found a handgun during that search. The district court denied Bannon’s motion to suppress finding the residence hall was a public area and the officers had reasonable suspicion of a firearms-related crime. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding officer safety was not at issue and the motion to suppress should have been granted. Issue on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in requiring direct testimony from officers that they were concerned for their safety in order to conduct a Terry frisk.

Appeal No. 112,782: State of Kansas v. Shawn Malik Brown

Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) Brown was convicted of two counts of felony murder. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) there is sufficient evidence to support Brown’s conviction for felony murder based on aggravated robbery of the first victim; 2) there is sufficient evidence to support Brown’s conviction for felony murder and aggravated robbery of the second victim; 3) the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of Brown’s interview with police; and 4) the state presented evidence of intent to aid and abet aggravated robbery or criminal discharge of a firearm under the new definition of “intentional.”

9 a.m. Thursday, December 15, 2016

Appeal No. 112,509/112,510: State of Kansas v. Tracey Jerome Toliver

Riley County: (Petition for Review) Toliver spit several times on a police department detective. The issue is whether the detective can be categorized as a county correctional officer or employee to constitute felony battery. The district court found Toliver guilty. The Court of Appeals found the detective was neither a correctional officer nor correctional employee. Issues on review are whether a uniformed county law enforcement officer who is transporting a detained person into a correctional facility is a “county correctional officer or employee” and whether Toliver was a “confined person in a county jail facility.”

Appeal No. 111,590: Emma McElhaney v. Charles Thomas, et al.

Riley County: (Petition for Review) Thomas was driving his vehicle in the school parking lot when he ran over a fellow student’s foot. McElhaney filed a civil lawsuit against Charles alleging negligence and the intentional tort of battery. In addition, McElhaney sued Charles’ parents for negligent entrustment of a vehicle to Charles. The jury awarded McElhaney $42,333 on the negligence claim. She appeals. Issues on review are whether the district court: 1) erred in finding that McElhaney did not sufficiently plead the intentional tort of battery or produce evidence of an intentional tort to send the claims to the jury; 2) abused its discretion by denying McElhaney’s motion to amend her petition to add a claim of punitive damages; and 3) erred in dismissing State Farm because the allegations were unsupported and conclusory. Also, whether McElhaney is precluded by res judicata from relitigating the negligent entrustment claims against Thomas’ parents.

Appeal No. 113,962: State of Kansas v. Jeffrey Wade Chapman

Barton County: (Criminal Appeal) Galyardt accused Chapman of having an affair with Galyardt’s girlfriend and came at Chapman with a knife. Chapman shot Galyardt in the chest and then took the body to the country. Despite Chapman’s claim of self-defense, the jury convicted Chapman of first-degree murder. Issues on appeal are whether the district court erred in denying a change of venue, and abused its discretion in allowing the state to introduce evidence of a text message.

Appeal No. 113,537: State of Kansas v. Billy F. Davis Jr.

Shawnee County: (Criminal Appeal) Davis was convicted of taking an 8-year-old girl from her apartment, raping her and then putting her in a clothes dryer. The jury convicted Davis of capital murder, aggravated kidnapping, rape of a child, and other charges relating to the entry into the girl’s apartment and two other burglaries in the complex that night. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of premeditated intentional murder; 2) the state committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument by misstating the law and the evidence; 3) the district court erred in failing to grant Davis’ motion to suppress; 4) the district court erred by instructing the jury that it must be unanimous on every count; and 5) Davis’ conviction for rape is multiplicitous.

Appeal No. 106,981: State of Kansas v. James K. Kahler

Osage County: (Criminal Appeal) Kahler was convicted of capital murder and aggravated burglary in connection with the shooting death of four family members. He was sentenced to death. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during defense counsel’s closing argument; 2) the district court’s comments during trial denied Kahler a fair trial; 3) the district court erred in denying a jury instruction on the defense expert’s testimony; 4) the district court erred in limiting the jury’s consideration of the evidence of mental disease or defect; 5) the district court erred in failing to instruct on felony murder; 6) the district court erred in prohibiting defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors about the death penalty; 7) cumulative err denied Kahler a fair trial; 8) the Kansas death penalty is categorically disproportionate punishment; 9) the two aggravating factors submitted by the state properly channeled jury discretion; and 10) there was sufficient evidence that the killings were committed in a heinous, atrocious and cruel manner.

Appeal No. 111,698: State of Kansas v. David Lee Ryce

Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) Ryce was charged with refusing to submit to testing for the presence of alcohol or drugs. Ryce’s counsel moved to have the count dismissed on the grounds that K.S.A. 8-1025 was unconstitutional. The district court conducted a hearing and granted the motion. The state appeals the district court’s conclusion. In February 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court found that by criminally punishing a driver’s refusal to submit to a breath test, K.S.A. 8-1025 infringes on fundamental rights arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding K.S.A. 8-1025 violates the Constitution.

Appeal No. 111,401: State of Kansas v. Gregory Michael Nece

Saline County: (Petition for Review) Nece was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Prior to trial, Nece filed motions to suppress alleging that: 1) there was no probable cause for the DUI arrest; 2) that the implied consent law is unconstitutional on its face and as applied regarding a preliminary breath test; 3) that the implied consent law is unconstitutional on its face and as applied regarding evidentiary breath testing; and 4) that law enforcement failed to obtain knowing, intelligent, and voluntary consent free of duress or coercion. The district court found that the implied consent advisory provided to Nece was inherently coercive and suppressed Nece’s breath test result. The state filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from the district court’s suppression order. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. In February 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court found K.S.A. 8-1025 infringes on fundamental rights arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Issue on review is whether the district court correctly determined that the warrantless search conducted on Nece constituted a clear violation of Nece’s Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.

Summary Calendar No Oral Argument

When a case does not present a new question of law, and oral argument is deemed neither helpful to the court nor essential to a fair hearing of the appeal, it is placed on the summary calendar. These cases are deemed submitted without oral argument.

Appeal No. 112,009: State of Kansas v. Derick A. Wilson

Shawnee County: (Rehearing) Wilson was charged with refusal to submit to testing and other charges. Prior to trial, Wilson filed a “Motion to Dismiss and Find K.S.A. 8-1025(b)(1)(D) Unconstitutional.” The district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the refusal to submit to testing charge and found K.S.A. 8-1025 unconstitutional. The state appealed. In February 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court found that by criminally punishing a driver’s refusal to submit to a breath test, K.S.A. 8-1025 infringes on fundamental rights arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Issue on rehearing is whether the test refusal law codified as K.S.A. 8-1025 violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Appeal No. 110,393: State of Kansas v. Darwin Estol Wycoff

Saline County: (Rehearing) Wycoff’s counsel filed a motion to suppress and/or dismiss any and all evidence regarding refusal to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs and for the dismissal of the charge of refusing to submit to a test to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs. Wycoff’s motion was based, in part, on the Fourth Amendment and the Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions. The district court suppressed all evidence supporting the test refusal charge and dismissed that charge from the complaint. In February 2016, the Kansas Supreme Court found that by criminally punishing a driver’s refusal to submit to a breath test, K.S.A. 8-1025 infringes on fundamental rights arising under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In June 2016, the United States Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota held that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving. Issue on rehearing is whether the test refusal law codified as K.S.A. 8-1025 violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable search and seizure.