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
Advertisement
Topeka — 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places has been challenged by Lawrence bar owner Dennis Steffes as unconstitutional because he says the ordinance superseded a state law that allows the city to limit -- but not entirely ban -- smoking in public places.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.
More like this
- No rulings issued by Supreme Court on Lawrence cases 2 comments / June 9, 2007
- Smoking ban decision could come in June 42 comments / April 25, 2007
- State Supreme Court upholds Martin Miller murder conviction 43 comments / July 27, 2007
- Miller appeal heard by state Supreme Court April 25, 2007
- High court considers city's ban on smoking 192 comments / April 26, 2007
Top ads RSS
- KU Student Health Services
- PRODUCTION SHIRT PRESSER needed. Start at 7AM. 5 1/2 day ...
- Research Assistant KU Requires bachelor's degree in biochemistry, chemistry, molecular ...
- Dining Services Supervisor Must be a CERTIFIED DIETARY MANAGER Hospitality ...
- *********** Customer Service Reps At Vangent, we’re unlike other call ...
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009 · 15 comments
- Blog: How Has Obama's Stimulus Helped You? November 21, 2009 · 18 comments
- Turbine manufacturer passes on Lawrence site November 24, 2009 · 43 comments
- Lambert performance causes stir November 25, 2009 · 12 comments
- Cornish hens: a special little meal November 25, 2009 · 1 comment
- On the street: Is Thanksgiving your favorite holiday? November 25, 2009 · 19 comments
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009 · 8 comments
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009 · 13 comments
- AD should go November 24, 2009 · 55 comments
- More cuts to Kansas state budget may be on the way, even after recent $259 million reductions November 24, 2009 · 4 comments
- Lawrence likely to land distribution center November 24, 2009
- KU students develop marketing plans for Freedom's Frontier National Heritage Area November 24, 2009
- Dropping home values may not accurately reflect market November 25, 2009
- Budget cuts lead to plans to close 18 National Guard armories November 25, 2009
- Haskell freshman dies in Montana jail November 24, 2009
- Quiet revolution taking place in America November 25, 2009
- Federal government seeking easement on 1 million acres of Flint Hills November 25, 2009
- Stay or leave? It's business as usual for Mangino in wake of probe November 25, 2009
- Message warns students at Perry-Lecompton not to attend class today April 20, 2007
- Self proves point by elevating Morningstar in practice November 24, 2009
8 June 2007
at 11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jayhawker07 (Anonymous) says…
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?
8 June 2007
at 11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
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.
8 June 2007
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
Jayhawker - are you forced to be at your job? Me either.
8 June 2007
at 1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
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.
8 June 2007
at 1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Centrist (Anonymous) says…
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 ..
8 June 2007
at 1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
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.
8 June 2007
at 2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WWoftheW (Anonymous) says…
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.
8 June 2007
at 3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ilovelucy (Anonymous) says…
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?
8 June 2007
at 3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
WWoftheW (Anonymous) says…
ilovelucy;
Yes.