District Judge Jared Johnson of the 28th Judicial District has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in four cases on the court’s October 30 docket.
After hearing oral arguments, Johnson will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.
“I am pleased that District Judge Johnson is taking time from his duties in the 28th Judicial District to sit with the Supreme Court,” said Chief Justice Lawton Nuss. “It’s a great help to our court, and we look forward to his contributions in deliberating and eventually deciding this case.”
Johnson became a judge in 2011 in the 28th Judicial District, which is composed of Saline and Ottawa counties. He hears criminal matters in Saline County and presides over the drug court program.
“I am honored to sit with the Supreme Court, and I appreciate the opportunity to serve in this capacity,” Johnson said.
Johnson received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Kansas in 1997 and graduated from the University of Kansas School of Law in 2001. He served in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps for four years. He then joined the Salina law firm of Clark, Mize & Linville.
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 www.kscourts.org.
The cases Johnson will hear October 30:
Appeal No. 116,111: State of Kansas v. Freddie A. Thomas
Barton County: (Petition for Review) The State charged Thomas with first-degree murder after he shot and killed Jeremy Saldana. Thomas filed a motion to dismiss, claiming he acted in self-defense and was immune from prosecution. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found Thomas was immune from prosecution due to self-defense and dismissed the complaint. The State appealed. The Court of Appeals held the district court did not make findings resolving controverted facts that are material to analyzing the self-defense issue and did not correctly apply the law regarding self-defense. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of immunity and dismissal of the charge and remanded with directions to conduct a rehearing on the motion. Thomas filed a petition for review. Issues on review are whether: 1) the district court correctly applied the law on self-defense immunity from prosecution; and 2) the Court of Appeals erred by reversing and remanding by finding the district court’s failure to make specific findings of fact precluded appellate review.
Appeal No. 117,743: State of Kansas v. Seth Collins
Sedgwick County: (Petition for Review) Collins was involved in a fracas with three unarmed women at the top of the stairs in his apartment building, resulting in the death of one and serious injury to another. Collins was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated battery, but he claimed self-defense immunity pursuant to K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5231. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted Collins’ motion for immunity and dismissed the case. The State appealed, claiming the district court erred because Collins lacked the reasonable belief he needed to use deadly force to prevent great bodily harm against himself and was precluded from self-defense immunity because he was an aggressor under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5226(c) and was not subject to either safe harbor retreat exception. The Court of Appeals agreed a grant of self-defense immunity was unwarranted and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Collins filed a petition for review. The State filed a conditional cross-petition for review. The Supreme Court granted both petitions for review. Issues on review are whether: 1) the Court of Appeals erred by reweighing the facts and incorrectly reapplying the probable cause standard after the district court correctly held Collins was immune from prosecution under K.S.A. 21-5231; and 2) the State met its probable cause burden by presenting evidence Collins acted as an aggressor and provoked the use of force under K.S.A. 21-5226(c).
Appeal No. 116,937: State of Kansas v. Kent D. Lindemuth
Shawnee County: (Petition for Review) A truck driver parked a trailer in a parking lot owned by Lindemuth. The driver detached the tractor and drove away, leaving the trailer and cargo. Lindemuth parked a vehicle in front of the trailer so that it could not be moved. Lindemuth eventually had a heated discussion with the driver and then later a heated phone call with the owner of the trucking company in Oklahoma. Lindemuth had the trailer towed. The facts are contested, but the owner told Lindemuth he would beat him up if he came to Topeka, and Lindemuth said he would put a bullet in the owner if he saw him. The owner came to Topeka, and he and Lindemuth continued with threats, but the two never met. The State charged Lindemuth with two counts of making a criminal threat: one for the threat made during the phone call when the owner was in Oklahoma, and one for the threat made during the phone call when the owner was in Topeka. At trial, Lindemuth asked the court to give the jury an instruction on the defense of the workplace. The trial court denied the instruction. The jury found Lindemuth guilty of the Oklahoma threat, but acquitted him of the other charge. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding the trial court erred when it refused to give the defense of the workplace instruction. The State petitioned for review. Issue on review is whether the trial court erred in failing to give the defense of the workplace instruction.
Case No. 121,208: In the Matter of Andrew M. Delaney, Respondent
Original Proceeding Related to Attorney Discipline: (Suspended suspension; extended probation) The Supreme Court admitted Delaney to the practice of law in Kansas in 2002. In 2014, the Supreme Court entered an order suspending Delaney’s license to practice law for six months for multiple violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct. He was given probation for two years. Delaney practiced in areas including domestic relations, and he has served as the Kickapoo tribe’s sole public defender and legal aid attorney since 2008. His conduct elicited complaints of lack of diligence, communication, and conflict of interest. The hearing panel unanimously recommends Delaney be suspended for one year and that imposition of the suspension be suspended and Delaney’s probation be extended for two years with multiple additions to the plan of probation. The disciplinary administrator recommends Delaney be suspended for one year, but that imposition of the suspension be suspended and Delaney’s probation be extended for two years with multiple additions to the plan of probation. Delaney joined in the recommendation of the disciplinary administrator.