TOPEKA—Kansas Court of Appeals judges will hear appeals by videoconference Wednesday, August 12. The oral arguments will be livestreamed on YouTube.
Judge Kim R. Schroeder is the presiding judge and is joined by Judges Henry Green Jr. and Michael Buser for the August 12 docket.
9 a.m. • August 12, 2020
Appeal No. 120,456: State of Kansas v. Boniface Wambutsi Wabuyabo
Johnson County: Wabuyabo was convicted by a jury of one count of reckless aggravated battery. On appeal, he claims the statements he made to law enforcement should have been suppressed because he was never advised of his Miranda rights. He also argues law enforcement used improperly coercive techniques to obtain a confession in violation of his constitutional rights.
10 a.m. • August 12, 2020
Appeal No. 121,060, State of Kansas v. Baltazar Guzman Ruiz
Finney County: A jury convicted Ruiz of possessing cocaine and driving under the influence. On appeal, Ruiz argues his convictions must be reversed because the trial judge violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by making an improper comment about his decision not to testify. Ruiz further contends his cocaine possession conviction must be reversed because the trial court provided the jury with a legally inappropriate instruction on the elements of cocaine possession.
1:30 p.m. • August 12, 2020
Appeal No. 121,350: Lara Van Asten v. Brian Van Asten
Miami County: The couple have been married three times over a span of nearly 20 years. The third marriage accounted for four years of the 20-year relationship. At trial, Brian argued Miami County District Court should only consider the third, four-year marriage when dividing property and calculating the duration of spousal maintenance. Ultimately, the district court divided the martial property equally and ordered Brian to pay spousal maintenance for 35 months. Brian appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion when it interpreted Kansas precedent as creating a different legal standard for divorce actions where parties have remarried each other. Brian contends the district court's interpretation resulted in an improper division of property and spousal maintenance calculation because the court considered the length of the parties' 20-year relationship rather than the four-year length of the last marriage.