Case Title: State v. Nelson

Citation: 206 Kan. 154, 476 P.2d 240

Docket Number: 46,057

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1970-11-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
206 Kan. 154 (1970)
476 P.2d 240
STATE OF KANSAS, Petitioner,
v.
JAMES I. NELSON, Respondent.
No. 46,057

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed November 7, 1970.
Ernest C. Ballweg, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause, and Kent Frizzell, Attorney General, was with him on the brief for the petitioner.
James I. Nelson, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief pro se.
Per Curiam:
This is an original proceeding in discipline.
An original complaint was filed with the State Board of Law Examiners by the Wichita Bar Association against the respondent, appellant, James I. Nelson, on June 14, 1968. Subsequently an amended complaint was filed on July 31, 1969, and mailed to the respondent Nelson on August 1, 1969.
The amended complaint read:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
"DATED July 31, 1969.
"BY ORDER OF THE BOARD"
A hearing on the charges was held September 2, 1969, by a three-man panel of the State Board of Law Examiners.
The panel filed its report with the State Board of Law Examiners.
We quote its report on Count I:
The panel found that Counts IV and V charging the respondent with counseling, aiding and abetting the commission of burglaries and other crimes were not substantiated because of the questionable character of the complaining witnesses.
The panel, in its report, found the respondent guilty of the charges as alleged in Counts II and III of the complaint.
We quote its finding in connection with Count II of the complaint:
"That he has therefore violated Canon 15."
The respondent contends that the evidence was not sufficient to support the charge. We cannot agree.
One of the witnesses, Daisy Hutchens, operated some apartments in the city of Wichita, Kansas. Some narcotic drugs were found in *156 one of the apartments. The respondent represented the person charged with illegal possession of the drugs. Daisy Hutchens testified:
"Q. And have you ever seen Mr. Nelson before?
"A. Yes, I have. He was at my home at one time.
"Q. Do you recall when that was?
"Q. What time of day was it, do you remember?
"Q. Was he alone or 
"Q. How did he introduce himself?
"Q. And what did you say to him?
"A. I said, "Okay, come in.'
"Q. And you admitted him to your house?
"A. Yes, I did."
The witness further testified that she saw the respondent at the traffic court in Wichita and stated:
"Q. And you were with 
"Q. And nobody else?
"A. No.
"Q. And you saw James Nelson in there?
"Q. Then did he tell you his name was James Nelson?
"A. Yes, very much so.
"A. Yes."
We are forced to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the charge.
We set out the panel's findings on Count III as follows:
The respondent objects to the conclusion reached on the following ground:
The respondent stated in the radio broadcast  "my information comes from my clients primarily." His clients were four persons who were being held for questioning in connection with the arrest of an individual for threatening the life of President Johnson.
It would serve no useful purpose to present and discuss the entire text of the radio program. It will suffice to state that the findings and conclusions of the panel were amply sustained by the record before it.
The respondent contends that the charge in Count III did not include the accusation of "advertising" and that, therefore, such a finding by the board was improper. We must conclude that where the facts in connection with the charge are clearly set out in the complaint a respondent is put on notice as to what ethical violations may arise therefrom. It is not required that the complaint contain a reference to the specific canon of ethics which may have been violated.
*158 The panel recommended to the State Board of Law Examiners that the respondent be disciplined by suspension for six months.
The State Board reported to this court in part as follows:
We accept without comment the change made by the State Board of Law Examiners in the panel's report from discipline by suspension to public censure and concur in the aforesaid findings and recommendations of the Board.
We do, for his future guidance, call respondent's attention to the general conclusion adopted by the Board as follows:
It is therefore by the court considered, ordered and adjudged that James I. Nelson be and he is hereby censured by this court.