Archive for Friday, June 8, 2007

No ruling on smoking ban, Martin Miller murder conviction

Today was earliest rulings could be expected

June 8, 2007


— The Kansas Supreme Court issued no rulings Friday on the city's smoking ban, nor the murder conviction of Martin Miller.

Oral arguments in the cases were held before the court in April, and Friday was the earliest date when the court could have issued rulings.

But the cases remain under consideration and no specific date has been set for decisions from the court.

The city's three-year-old ban of smoking in indoor public places has been challenged by Lawrence bar owner Dennis Steffes as unconstitutional because he says the ordinance superseded a state law that allows the city to limit -- but not entirely ban -- smoking in public places.

City officials contend the ordinance doesn't prohibit all smoking in public places because it allows smoking on outdoor decks, patios or other open-air spaces.

In the second case, Miller is appealing his conviction in the 2004 strangulation death of his wife Mary Miller.

Miller contends pornographic photos found on his computer should not have been admitted as evidence in the trial, and that in closing arguments prosecutors prejudiced the jury by referring to him as the killer.

Miller was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years.

Prosecutors say the evidence of pornography was critical to establish motive, and that references to Miller in closing arguments were appropriate.


Jayhawker07 11 years ago

I thought the ban was applied for the protection of the workers. So any business privite or public could not force someone to work around smoke or prevent them from applying for employment because of the smoking. I didn't think the law was about protecting the general public patron. Does Hallmark have a smoking area inside there building? Do privite corporations have an exclusion from this rule?

deec 11 years ago

If you're cheating on your wife and you don't believe in divorce, but you want to be with your mistresses, evidence of infidelity would seem to be relevant to motive.

imastinker 11 years ago

Jayhawker - are you forced to be at your job? Me either.

Centrist 11 years ago

imastinker .... but should you be excluded from consideration for a job that you CHOOSE because you don't smoke and/or don't wish to have carcinogens forced upon you as a condition of employment? Should you have your career choices limited? Where's the freedom in that?

Wake up people - this isn't about the constitution, or business.

It's a public health issue, and for once, I wholeheartedly agree (which is rare) with the commission in banning smoke from public (indoor) places.

Centrist 11 years ago

Smoking is the single dumbest thing we humans ever started doing ... and any way that it can be discouraged is ok with me. When exactly will we get a clue how bad it really is?

A good business will attract people regardless of the 'freedom' to smoke (which detracts from other people's 'freedom' to go to that place without the filth of smoke). Halfd the restaurants in Lawrence are booming .. just go to Mezcal, Jade, Longhorn, On The Border, etc and see for yourself how little the ban affects them. And I seriously doubt that the pubs are suffering that much, either ..

deec 11 years ago

I would think the bar and restaurant owners would have a better idea how the ban is affecting them than would the general public. They are the ones seeing the results in their bottom line.

WWoftheW 11 years ago

Two of the biggest complainers about the ban are the owners of Johnnys and Free State Brewery. Believe me they are not going out of business becuase people can't smoke. It is the other way around.

ilovelucy 11 years ago

Deec: good statement but most of the ignorant rants on this forum don't believe that business owners can think for themselves.
WW: have you talked to the owner of Johnny's?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.