Division of Academic Success and Student Affairs

Court of Appeals Case Summaries

KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

U.S. CONSTITUTION DAY

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT UNION

Forum Hall

MANHATTAN, KANSAS

Before Green, P.J., McAnany and Standridge, JJ.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2016

9:30 A.M.

State of Kansas v. Brian A. Murrin, Case No. 115,110

Richard E. James for the State

Rick Kittel for Brian Murrin

After arguing with his wife, Brian A. Murrin was told by law enforcement to leave the premises. When Murrin returned, he ran from a police officer and then attempted to break free from the officer after being handcuffed. Following a search incident to arrest, the officer discovered marijuana and a smoking device in Murrin's pocket. A jury convicted Murrin of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, criminal trespass, and interference with law enforcement. The district court sentenced Murrin to a controlling 12-month term of probation with an underlying prison sentence of 30 months.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the district court err by not instructing the jury on voluntary intoxication as a defense to the crimes of criminal trespass and interference with law enforcement?

  1. Did the district court err by failing to give a unanimity instruction on the interference with law enforcement charge?

  1. Was the evidence sufficient to support Murrin's convictions?

10:15 A.M.

Mark S. Sellens v. Farmers Insurance Co., Inc. , Case No. 115,413

L.J. Leatherman and Nicole Revenaugh for Mark Sellens

Tim Wolf for Farmers Insurance Company

Mark Sellens was severely injured in a car accident and sustained damages in excess of $1.7 million. The driver of the other vehicle, Jason Klotz, was an agent for Kansas Fire & Safety Equipment, Inc. (KFSE). Klotz was covered under two insurance policies: (1) Klotz personally was covered under a State Farm policy with liability limits of $250,000; and (2) Klotz was covered by KFSE under a Liberty Mutual policy with liability limits of $100,000. State Farm and Liberty each tendered policy limits on behalf of Klotz and KFSE, for a total of $350,000.

Sellens provided his insurance company, Farmers Insurance, with a copy of Liberty Mutual's $100,000 policy limits and made a claim for underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits under his separate $250,000 UIM policy with Farmers. Farmers denied the claim.

Sellens filed suit against Klotz and KFSE; Farmers was notified of the suit but failed to intervene. After a bench trial, the district court entered a judicial determination of damages, including several findings of fact and conclusions of law. Relevant here, the district court held KFSE was operating the car and was 100% at fault for Sellens' injuries. Sellens gave a copy of the court's ruling to Farmers, this time requesting UIM benefits of $150,000 (the difference between the $250,000 UIM in his Farmers policy and the $100,000 from Liberty Mutual.) Farmers refused to pay and Sellens sued. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The district court ruled: (1) Farmers was bound by the district court's prior ruling; (2) Klotz was operating the car at the time of the accident; (3) Klotz' car was not a UIM as defined in the policy; (4) the policy complied with K.S.A. 40-284(b); and (5) the policy did not provide UIM coverage to Sellens because his limits were equal to those held by Klotz.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the district court correctly find that Klotz was operating the other car, or was it bound by its previous findings of fact that KFSE was operating the other car?

  1. Did Farmers' policy comply with the K.S.A. 40-284(b) minimum coverage requirements?

  1. Is Sellens entitled to UIM benefits of $150,000 under the plain language of K.S.A. 40-284(b)?

  1. Did the $250,000 payment to Sellens by State Farm preclude Sellens' UIM coverage claim under the Farmers Insurance policy?

  1. Is Sellens entitled to attorney fees under K.S.A. 40-908?

11:00 A.M.

The Estate of Lillian L. Leppke v. Marilyn K. Heier , No. 114,012

Randall Pankratz for the Estate

Michael Whalen for Marilyn Heier

Lillian L. Leppke and Elmer H. Leppke, aged 91 and 87 respectively, jointly owned 240 acres of land. On April 8, 2009, Lillian and Elmer's daughter, Marilyn K. Heier, took them to a land title business. Eventually, Lillian and Elmer signed a deed that made Lillian, Elmer, their two sons, and Marilyn co-owners of the land as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Lillian and Elmer never physically entered the building that housed the land title business and signed the deed after looking at it in their car for no more than two minutes. Shortly thereafter, Elmer died. Lillian, who needed money, decided to sell the land but learned she could not since it was encumbered by the joint tenancy. Lillian decided to sue Marilyn, alleging that she and Elmer signed the deed because of Marilyn's undue influence. Marilyn denied that she unduly influenced her parents. A bench trial was held. Ultimately, the trial court voided the deed, ruling that Marilyn obtained her parent's signatures on the deed through undue influence.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the trial court deny Marilyn the opportunity to present evidence rebutting Lillian's allegation that she obtained the signatures through undue influence?

  1. Was the trial court's ruling supported by sufficient evidence?

2:00 P.M.

State of Kansas v. Debra Lea Davenport, Case No. 114,787

Jodi Litfin for the State

Kevin Shepherd for Debra Davenport

Debra Davenport drove to Maurine McRoberts’ house one night, complaining that there were bugs crawling on her skin. McRoberts allowed Davenport to use her basement shower. McRoberts’ granddaughter determined that Davenport needed medical help and called 911. Emergency personnel, including Shawnee Heights' firefighters and a Sherriff’s Deputy, responded. They removed Davenport from the shower and prepared to take her to the hospital. Claiming that Davenport was unable to give them essential information—such as her name, date of birth, or whether she was taking any prescription medications—one of the firefighters searched her purse for an ID and medications. Inside the purse, he discovered another bag in which he found a crack pipe, a syringe, and a baggie of crystal-like substance later identified as methamphetamine. The Sherriff’s Deputy was standing behind the firefighter as he performed the search.

The State charged Davenport with one count of possession of methamphetamine and one count of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. Davenport filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse. She argued that the warrantless search was subject to protections under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights, which protect citizens from unreasonable government searches or seizures. The district court granted Davenport’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that the firefighters were engaged in investigatory-type activities and were therefore constitutionally constrained government actors. The State appealed, arguing that the evidence should not have been suppressed because the firefighters were not acting as agents of law enforcement, and thus were not "government actors" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and § 15 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

ISSUE:

  1. Did the district court err in suppressing the evidence obtained from Davenport’s purse?