TOPEKA — Leavenworth County District Court Chief Judge David J. King has been appointed to sit with the state Supreme Court Thursday, May 1, to hear oral arguments in six cases.
After hearing oral arguments, King will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
King has been a Leavenworth County District Court judge since 1986 and the district’s chief judge since 1991. Before he was appointed judge, he was the assistant Leavenworth County attorney and also in private practice.
King is a graduate of the University of Kansas School of Law.
All Supreme Court oral arguments are webcast live through the Watch Supreme Court Live! link in the right-hand column of the Kansas Judicial Branch website at http://www.kscourts.org.
The six cases King will hear beginning at 9 a.m. Thursday, May 1, are as follows:
Appeal No. 106,894: State v. Quartez Brown
Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) Brown was convicted of felony murder, second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault, and sentenced to a hard-20 term. He appeals. Issues are whether the district court erred granting someone's withdrawal of Brown's motion for new counsel without sufficient inquiry, erred in failing to give a lesser included offense instruction of voluntary manslaughter, and erred in failing to give lesser included offense instructions on reckless second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Also, whether there was sufficient evidence to find Brown guilty of aggravated burglary beyond a reasonable doubt, whether there was sufficient evidence to find Brown guilty of felony murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether there was sufficient evidence to find Brown guilty of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether the case must be remanded to the district court for a nunc pro tunc order to correct the error in the journal entry of judgment.
Appeal No. 108,218: State v. Kevin L. Brown, Jr.
Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) Brown was convicted by jury of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault, and sentenced to a hard-20 term with a consecutive 120-month term. He appeals. Issue are whether district court had jurisdiction to convict Brown of felony murder and aggravated burglary because he was not bound over for aggravated assault against Otis Bolden as the underlying intent element of aggravated burglary. Whether evidence exists to support the alternative means instruction, whether aiding and abetting the commission of a criminal act is a separate and distinct crime from acting as the principal in the commission of a criminal act, and whether the instructions given to the jury regarding the felony murder charge and the underlying felony were flawed. Also, whether Brown’s convictions for felony murder and burglary are invalid due to the state's failure to amend the information and for the district court's unwarranted narrowing of the charges in the jury instructions.
Appeal No. 108,586: State v. Kiara M. Williams
Sedgwick County: (Criminal Appeal) Williams was convicted of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and sentenced to a hard-20 term. She appeals. Issues are whether the trial court erred giving an instruction on sympathy and prejudice pursuant to PIK Crim.3d 51.07, whether the trial court abused its discretion by giving PIK Crim.3d 51.07 and not giving the mere association or presence instruction as requested by the defense, and whether defense counsel imposed a guilt-based defense by telling the jury that Williams was morally and ethically wrong. Also, whether cumulative error prevented Williams from having a fair trial.
Appeal No. 105,695: State v. Allen R. Julian
Rice County: (Petition for Review of Court of Appeals Decision) Julian was arrested for possession of marijuana, possession of a handgun, and no proof of insurance after a traffic stop. Julian moved to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the traffic stop. The state appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded (Judge Henry W. Green Jr., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Supreme Court granted Julian's petition for review. Issues are whether the search of Julian's vehicle was in violation of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, and whether the search of his vehicle was lawful under K.S.A. 22-2501 which, at the time, allowed limited searches to areas within a person's immediate presence and only for the purposes of protecting an officer or preventing escape.
Appeal No. 109,836 and 111,126: In the Matter of Miriam Rittmaster
Original Proceeding in Attorney Discipline: (Recommended Temporary Suspension of Law License with Reinstatement Hearing) These disciplinary actions were docketed separately but consolidated by the Supreme Court for hearing. On April 1, 2013, respondent and the disciplinary administrator entered into a joint motion for temporary suspension that the Supreme Court granted. Respondent remains suspended during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
In 109,836, respondent accepted a retainer in a domestic matter but repeatedly failed to respond to her client's requests for information. Respondent and the client failed to appear at a hearing on temporary orders despite respondent's notice from the court to appear. Respondent lied to her client about scheduled hearing dates. The client terminated representation and filed a complaint with the disciplinary administrator. Respondent failed to cooperate in the investigation, but the day before the scheduled disciplinary hearing filed an answer in which she admitted the factual allegations and the rule violations. The hearing panel found violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law, with a reinstatement hearing. Respondent has not taken exceptions.
In 111,126, respondent accepted representation to attempt to set aside a divorce decree. She failed to appear at a hearing, filed motions without taking steps to have them set for hearing, failed to communicate with the client, and failed to follow up when representation was terminated. Respondent answered the disciplinary complaint and entered into stipulations. The hearing panel found violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended suspension for one year, retroactive to April 1, 2013, with a reinstatement hearing. Respondent has not taken exceptions.