Case ID: kan_223/html/0032-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 48,424
    James R. Earley, Appellant, v. Harry’s IGA No. 1, 2, 3, 4, Inc., Harry M. Bauersfeld; Joe Biggs, Appellees.
    
    (573 P.2d 572)
    Opinion filed November 5, 1977.
    
      Paul W. Clark, of Clark and Lykins, of Topeka, was on the brief for the appellant.
    
      Robert D. Ochs, of Fisher, Ralston and Ochs, of Topeka, and Wendell F. Cowan, Jr., of Crane, Martin, Claussen, Hamilton and Barry, of Topeka, were on the brief for the appellees.
   Per Curiam:

We hold that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in this case. A conviction by a-police court having jurisdiction of an offense for which one is arrested is conclusive on the issue of probable cause even though the case may later be dismissed in the district court by the prosecution following an appeal and even though the plaintiff is acquitted of the charge in the district court on appeal, unless the conviction in the police court was based upon perjured testimony, fraud, or corruption. (Hill v. Day, 168 Kan. 604, 215 P.2d 219; and Smith v. Parman, 102 Kan. 787, 172 Pac. 33.)

The issue presented is thoroughly discussed in the district court’s memorandum opinion. There is nothing in the record to show that the plaintiff had evidence sufficient to establish that the conviction in police court was based upon perjured testimony, fraud, or corruption. If the plaintiff had such evidence he had the duty to present it to the trial court for its consideration on the motion. This the plaintiff failed to do. .

The judgment is affirmed.