TOPEKA — Johnson County District Court Judge Gerald T. Elliott has been appointed to sit with the state Supreme Court Tuesday, April 29, to hear oral arguments in five cases.
After hearing oral arguments, Elliott will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
Elliott has been a district court judge in Johnson County since 1990. Before that, he was a Merriam Municipal Court judge for 18 years. He also served as city prosecutor for Mission Hills, as a judge pro tem in the Johnson County District Court and had a private law practice.
After Elliott graduated from the University of Kansas School of Law in 1964, and before he entered private practice, he worked as a law clerk for federal district court Judge Arthur J. Stanley, Jr.
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 five cases Elliott will hear beginning at 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 29, are as follows:
Appeal No. 106,111: State v. Keaira Brown, a/k/a Keaire Brown
Wyandotte County: (Criminal Appeal) Brown was convicted of felony murder and attempted aggravated robbery, and sentenced to a hard-20 term. She appeals. Issues are whether the district court erred instructing the jury that it could convict Brown of felony murder if it found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that she had killed the victim in "flight from attempting to commit aggravated robbery." Also, whether both convictions must be vacated on alternative means grounds, whether the district court erred authorizing adult prosecution, and whether the prosecutor committed misconduct during her closing argument. Also, whether the Kansas sentencing scheme that requires a district court to sentence a juvenile to life in prison without possibility of parole for 20 years, and gives a judge no discretion to depart, is unconstitutional.
Appeal No. 103,881: State v. Kenneth Crawford
Barton County: (Petition for Review of Court of Appeals Decision) Crawford was convicted of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated indecent liberties, and criminal threat, and sentenced to a controlling term of 337 months. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Crawford's petition for review only for issue two. Issue on review is whether the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct by: improperly suggesting to jurors they would have to answer to the state for their verdict; misdefining the state's burden of proof by analogy to a jigsaw puzzle; and arguing facts not in evidence during closing argument.
Appeal No. 106,210: State v. Christina Mika Isabel Ortega
Finney County: (Appeal on Petition for Review of Court of Appeals Decision) Ortega was convicted by jury of attempted aggravated interference with parental custody of her daughter and disorderly conduct. The district court imposed a 10-month prison sentence. Ortega appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed (Chief Judge Thomas Malone, dissenting). The Supreme Court granted Ortega's petition for review. Issues on review include whether the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of ignorance or mistake. Whether the prosecutor violated an order in limine in his opening statement when he referred to irrelevant prior bad acts, and, in his closing argument, the prosecutor also improperly vouched for the state's witnesses and misstated the law. Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that Ortega performed an overt act toward taking her child out of state, a requisite to attempted aggravated interference with parental custody. Whether the district court erred when it did not instruct the jury on the lesser offense of attempted interference with parental custody. Whether the jury convicted Ortega of attempting to lead, take, carry, decoy, or entice V.O. away. Whether the district court's instruction on reasonable doubt improperly advised the jury that they could find Ortega guilty if they had "no reasonable doubt as to the truth of any of the claims required to be proved by the state," rather than each of the claims required to be proved by the state. Whether cumulative error deprived Ortega of a fair trial.
Appeal No. 107,158: State v. William D. Holt, II
Shawnee County: (Criminal Appeal) Holt was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and aggravated burglary. He was sentenced to a hard-50 term for the murder and appeals that conviction and sentence. Issues are whether prosecutor's appeals to sympathy and misstatements of the law were reversible misconduct, whether the district court erred giving a reasonable doubt instruction that lowered the state's burden of proof, and whether, because the prosecutorial misconduct and the error in the jury instructions both go to the burden of proof, cumulative error also dictates reversal. Also, whether there was sufficient evidence that Holt knowingly or purposely created a risk of death to more than one person to warrant imposition of a hard-50 sentence. Supplemental briefing was filed on the constitutionality of Holt’s hard-50 sentence in light of Alleyne v. United States.
Appeal No. 111,125: In the Matter of Trey Thomas Meyer
Original Proceeding in Attorney Discipline: (Recommended Temporary Suspension of Law License With Reinstatement Hearing) This disciplinary proceeding arises out of two complaints filed against the respondent. In the first, respondent was retained to seek a declaratory judgment regarding real property. He failed to respond to discovery requests, failed to meet the deadline to exchange witness and exhibit lists, and failed to communicate adequately with the client. Respondent also was admitted to an attorney diversion program but failed to comply with the agreement. In the second complaint, respondent accepted representation in a divorce action but failed to file in a timely manner, causing the client to lose significant advantages when her husband filed first. The hearing panel found violations of Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct and recommended suspension from the practice of law for six months with a reinstatement hearing. Respondent has not taken exceptions.