foundation rule in Kansas

2024The first example Schultz offers as a foundation for his claim is a remark made by Detective Burkholder during the interview at the law enforcement center that his "end 10 goal in all this is to get you help so you can get back to your family." Schultz cites two out-of-state cases to support his argument that Burkholder's statement provided a false sense of security that can render a confession involuntary: Cole v. State, 923 P.2d 820 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996); and State v. Howard, 825 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 2012).

2024The first example Schultz offers as a foundation for his claim is a remark made by Detective Burkholder during the interview at the law enforcement center that his "end 10 goal in all this is to get you help so you can get back to your family." Schultz cites two out-of-state cases to support his argument that Burkholder's statement provided a false sense of security that can render a confession involuntary: Cole v. State, 923 P.2d 820 (Alaska Ct. App. 1996); and State v. Howard, 825 N.W.2d 32 (Iowa 2012).

2024In Cole, the Alaska Court of Appeals suppressed Cole's statements to law enforcement officers, partly because they falsely assured him that their questioning was motivated by a desire to help him and his daughter. 923 P.2d at 831-32 .

2022He first directs our attention to Schuyler and its holding that a liberty interest could be implicated when conditions are imposed that lead to "a significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Schuyler, 285 Kan. at 682 .

2016The standard of performance to be applied to measure the adequacy of appellate counsel under the third exception is that outlined in Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. at 476-78 , and a brief review of that case provides the foundation for our analysis here.

2016In Flores-Ortega , defense counsel wrote “‘“bring appeal papers” ’ ” in her file, but the court was unable to determine the content of her conversation with the defendant from the record. 528 U.S. at 487 .

1993There was no evidence to refute the officer’s testimony that he followed the prescribed procedure. *773 “Whether an adequate evidentiary foundation was laid is a question of fact for the trial court and largely rests in its discretion. [Citation omitted.] So long as there is substantial competent evidence to support the finding, it will not be disturbed on appeal.” State v. Lieurance, 14 Kan.

1991The foundation for the defense of “outrageous conduct” is an offshoot of entrapment and is found in Justice Rehnquist’s dictum in United States v. Russell: “[W]e may some day be presented *693 with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” 411 U.S. at 431-32 .

1955This appeal marks another, and we trust the last, chapter in a long course of litigation (See Fakes v. Osborne, 158 Kan. 1 , 145 P. 2d 123 ; Fakes v. Osborne, 165 Kan. 176 , 193 P. 2d 218 ) wherein appellant, a man without legal training and experience, has insisted on representing himself in this court and, from the commencement of such litigation as our records disclose, has always relied, both in the court below and in this court, on the McMurray contract herein involved as a foundation for the claim of title asserted by him to the real estate described in the heretofore quoted judgment.

1955This appeal marks another, and we trust the last, chapter in a long course of litigation (See Fakes v. Osborne, 158 Kan. 1 , 145 P. 2d 123 ; Fakes v. Osborne, 165 Kan. 176 , 193 P. 2d 218 ) wherein appellant, a man without legal training and experience, has insisted on representing himself in this court and, from the commencement of such litigation as our records disclose, has always relied, both in the court below and in this court, on the McMurray contract herein involved as a foundation for the claim of title asserted by him to the real estate described in the heretofore quoted judgment.

1955This appeal marks another, and we trust the last, chapter in a long course of litigation (See Fakes v. Osborne, 158 Kan. 1 , 145 P. 2d 123 ; Fakes v. Osborne, 165 Kan. 176 , 193 P. 2d 218 ) wherein appellant, a man without legal training and experience, has insisted on representing himself in this court and, from the commencement of such litigation as our records disclose, has always relied, both in the court below and in this court, on the McMurray contract herein involved as a foundation for the claim of title asserted by him to the real estate described in the heretofore quoted judgment.

1955This appeal marks another, and we trust the last, chapter in a long course of litigation (See Fakes v. Osborne, 158 Kan. 1 , 145 P. 2d 123 ; Fakes v. Osborne, 165 Kan. 176 , 193 P. 2d 218 ) wherein appellant, a man without legal training and experience, has insisted on representing himself in this court and, from the commencement of such litigation as our records disclose, has always relied, both in the court below and in this court, on the McMurray contract herein involved as a foundation for the claim of title asserted by him to the real estate described in the heretofore quoted judgment.

1921The principal case cited in support of this contention is King v. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683 , 60 Pac. 731 , which, it is said in appellants’ brief, is the very foundation of their claim.

1921The principal case cited in support of this contention is King v. Mollohan, 61 Kan. 683 , 60 Pac. 731 , which, it is said in appellants’ brief, is the very foundation of their claim.

1919It is true that intent is necessary to constitute the crime of embezzlement (State v. Pate, 268 Mo. 431 ) but plaintiff’s error lies in the place to which he seeks to apply such intent.

1918In some of the cases which adopt the other view, the fact that at the common law relationship of the judge to one of the litigants did not disqualify him from sitting in the cause is given more consideration and force than it is entitled to in our opinion. .In Roberts v. Roberts, supra, the supreme court of Georgia laid stress upon the statutory dis qualification of a juror who is related tó one of the parties or has an interest in the result of the suit, and the court in the opinion said: “The reasons at the foundation of the rule which forbid a juror from sitting in a case where he is relate

1911It is true that in Steele v. Souder, 20 Kan. 39 , the fact appeared that the payment by one joint maker was made without the knowledge or assent of the other, and in that respect the case differs from this.

1911In Hutto v. Knowlton, supra, the foundation of the rule as to constructive notice of fraud by public records sufficient to start the statute of limitations was said to consist in this: “Where a public record is required by law to be kept as a source of. information respecting property rights and interest a duty rests upon anyone to whom the in formation is material to improve with diligence the opportunity of learning that which the record discloses.

1908The court said: “It thus appears that the decisions of this court are in accord with the English rule and in harmony with our statute in reference to joint debtors.” (Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 466 , 66 N. E. 133 , 61 L.

1908The court said: “It thus appears that the decisions of this court are in accord with the English rule and in harmony with our statute in reference to joint debtors.” (Gilbert v. Finch, 173 N. Y. 455, 466 , 66 N. E. 133 , 61 L.

1908In Bell v. Perry & Townsend, 43 Iowa, 368 , it was stated that the foundation of the rule rests in both cases on the joint liability, whether arising out of tort or contract; and this is also referred to in the Gilbert case in New York, where there is a similar statute.

1905(People v. Chapleau, 121 N. Y. 267 , 24 N. E. 469 .) The logical and necessary corollary of that part of the rule stated is that when a person testifies simply as a witness and not as a party, his testimony can be used against him even though he is afterward indicted and tried for the commission of the crime disclosed by the inquest.” (Page 331.) Other authorities supporting this rule are: Wilson v. The State, 110 Ala. 1 , 20 South. 415 , 55 Am.

1905(People v. Chapleau, 121 N. Y. 267 , 24 N. E. 469 .) The logical and necessary corollary of that part of the rule stated is that when a person testifies simply as a witness and not as a party, his testimony can be used against him even though he is afterward indicted and tried for the commission of the crime disclosed by the inquest.” (Page 331.) Other authorities supporting this rule are: Wilson v. The State, 110 Ala. 1 , 20 South. 415 , 55 Am.

1905Such history is clearly and forcefully stated in the case of Meng v. Coffee, 67 Neb. 500, 509 , 93 N. W. 713, 716 , 60 L.

1905Such history is clearly and forcefully stated in the case of Meng v. Coffee, 67 Neb. 500, 509 , 93 N. W. 713, 716 , 60 L.

1904It was so decided in Headley v. Challiss, 15 Kan. 602 .” These quotations embody the principal utterances of this court upon the subject prior to Railway Co. v. Merrill, infra. The foundation of the rule and the reasons for its limitations have not been elaborated.

1904In the case of City of Hastings v. Foxworthy, 45 Neb. 676 , 63 N. W. 955 , 34 L.

1904In the case of City of Hastings v. Foxworthy, 45 Neb. 676 , 63 N. W. 955 , 34 L.

1899(Crowther v. Elliott, 7 Kan. 235 .) It will be noticed that the order of consolidation was made and entered of record on March 22, 1897, and no objection to the order appears anywhere until March 15, 1898, after a trial had before the referee, at which all parties appeared.

1896It was enough for him to show that he had held himself out to the public as the incumbent o'f the office in question.” In Commonwealth v. Kane, supra, it is held: ■ ‘ ‘ The foundation of the rule of evidence that a person acting as a public officer has been duly appointed to the office which he assumes to exercise is, that all acts done by what appears to be public authority are presumed to be rightly done until the contrary is proved.” In Bank of United States v. Dandridge, supra, it is said: “By the general rules of evidence, presumptions are continually made in cases of private persons of a

1896It was enough for him to show that he had held himself out to the public as the incumbent o'f the office in question.” In Commonwealth v. Kane, supra, it is held: ■ ‘ ‘ The foundation of the rule of evidence that a person acting as a public officer has been duly appointed to the office which he assumes to exercise is, that all acts done by what appears to be public authority are presumed to be rightly done until the contrary is proved.” In Bank of United States v. Dandridge, supra, it is said: “By the general rules of evidence, presumptions are continually made in cases of private persons of a