TOPEKA — Sumner County District Court Judge R. Scott McQuin has been appointed to sit with the state Supreme Court Monday, April 28, to hear oral arguments in four cases.
After hearing oral arguments, McQuin will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and opinion drafting.
McQuin has been a district court judge in Sumner County since 1993. Before that, he was a magistrate judge in Barber County from 1987 to 1993. Before becoming a judge, McQuin was Barber County Attorney and also had a private law practice in Medicine Lodge.
McQuin is a graduate of the Kansas University 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 four cases McQuin will hear beginning at 9 a.m. Monday, April 28, are as follows:
Appeal No. 109,208: In the Interest of N.A.C.
Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) N.A.C. was born on the street in Wichita on November 2, 2011, and placed in police protective custody the same day. Kansas Social Rehabilitation Services (now Kansas Department for Children and Families) placed the child with foster parents. Maternal cousins from Idaho expressed interest in adopting the child. Parental rights were terminated in 2012, and the child became available for adoption. On the foster parents' motion, the district court found that SRS had failed to make reasonable efforts or progress toward finding an adoptive placement, removed the child from SRS custody, and granted custody to the foster parents with court approval to adopt. The maternal cousins appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding regarding reasonable efforts, vacated the court's orders regarding custody, and remanded while SRS proceeds with and finalizes adoption placement [Chief Judge Thomas E Malone, dissenting]. The Supreme Court granted the foster parents' petition for review. [In a separate proceeding, a final decree of adoption was granted in favor of the foster parents while this appeal was pending.] Issues on review include whether the Court of Appeals erred finding that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and in finding that the district court decision is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
Appeal No. 106,299: State v. Bobby D. Edwards
Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review of Court of Appeals Decision) Edwards was charged with aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder. At his first trial, he was acquitted of aggravated burglary and attempted murder. The second trial resulted in a mistrial. At his third trial, he was convicted of aggravated robbery. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Edward's petition for review. Issues on review are whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Edwards of aggravated robbery and whether his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated. Also, whether the district court erred by refusing to inform the jury that the underlying theft could not be incidental to the crime, erred by not instructing the jury that the threat of force must precede or be contemporaneous with the taking, erred in allowing the state to present an expert witness without following K.S.A. 60-226, and erred in limiting Edwards’ attorney’s examination of Dr. Goodman. And, whether this combination of errors denied Edwards’ constitutional right to a fair trial.
Appeal No. 105,603: State v. Monh Suady
Johnson County: (Cross-Petition for Review After Court of Appeals Remand to District Court) Suady was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated battery, and attempted aggravated robbery, and sentenced to a controlling 290-month prison term. He appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded. Suady petitioned for review, and the state cross-petitioned. The Supreme Court denied the petition for review but granted the cross-petition. Issue on cross-petition for review questions whether, since the Kansas robbery statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court may speculate about the legislative intent behind it and read into the statute an element not readily found in it, such as lack of facilitation to commit another crime.
Appeal No. 109,355: In the Matter of A.M.M.-H
Johnson County: (Petition for Review of Court of Appeals Decision) Respondent was charged with three felonies and entered into a stipulation to two of them before being placed on Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile Prosecution. He was sentenced to 24 months with 24 months’ aftercare. The adult sentence was ordered to be concurrent terms of 59 months and 18 months. Respondent was remanded to the juvenile correctional facility and later placed on conditional release. The state moved to revoke the juvenile sentence and impose the adult sentence, following alleged violations of the conditional release contract. The district court found violations of the sentence and sustained the motion to impose the adult sentence. Respondent appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted respondent's petition for review. Issue on review is whether technical violations of a juvenile's conditional release constitute violations of the court's sentence.