Case Title: State v. Calhoun

Citation: 224 Kan. 579, 581 P.2d 397

Docket Number: 49,772

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1978-07-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
224 Kan. 579 (1978)
581 P.2d 397
STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant,
v.
RUTH L. CALHOUN, Appellee.
No. 49,772

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 21, 1978.
Richard Ballinger, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, attorney general, and Vem Miller, district attorney, were with him on the brief for the appellant.
T.L. O'Hara, of Warner, Bailey, O'Hara, Busch & O'Hara, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER, J.:
Defendant, Ruth L. Calhoun, was charged with the offense of giving a worthless check, in violation of K.S.A. 21-3707. At the close of the preliminary hearing, the trial court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss. The state appeals.
The sole issue is whether sending of a notice by certified mail was "notice" under K.S.A. 21-3707.
The check was written by the defendant and was taken by a Safeway store in Wichita on August 14, 1977. It was deposited on the following day, and thereafter it was returned to Safeway, marked "Insufficient Funds." The store manager attempted to contact the defendant by telephone, but was unsuccessful. A Safeway security officer then sent a letter to the defendant by regular mail; there was no response. Next a notice was sent to the defendant by certified mail, addressed to her at the address shown on the check. Restricted Delivery (show to whom and date delivered) was requested. The return receipt shows that the certified mail was delivered to James Eckleford on September 16, 1977.
K.S.A. 21-3707 reads as follows:
................
Pertinent postal regulations, as set forth in the 1977 Postal Service Manual, which is incorporated by reference into the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR § 111.1, provide as follows:
"154.17 RESTRICTED DELIVERY
"165.34 PROCEDURES AT OFFICE OF DELIVERY
*581 The content of the notice mailed is not challenged; the sole issue is whether the manner in which it was mailed meets the statutory criteria. We hold that it does. The notice was sent by certified mail and delivery was restricted. Thus it was "deposited as restricted matter in the United States mail." It was addressed to the person to be charged with notice, the defendant, at her address as it appears on the check.
The rebuttable presumption provided by the statute arises when such a showing is made. The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint. The judgment is reversed, with directions to proceed with trial.