District Judge John Weingart to sit with Supreme Court January 30

TOPEKA—District Judge John Weingart of the 22nd Judicial District has been appointed to sit with the Kansas Supreme Court to hear oral arguments on the court's January 30 docket.

After hearing oral arguments, Weingart will join Supreme Court justices in their deliberations and decision drafting.

"The Supreme Court looks forward to Judge Weingart hearing cases with us. He will read the case materials, prepare for oral argument, and deliberate with the court on its decisions," said Chief Justice Marla Luckert. "We thank Judge Weingart for helping us, especially because we know he already has a significant caseload in district court to handle."

Weingart has been a district court judge since 2001. The 22nd Judicial District is composed of Brown, Doniphan, Marshall, and Nemaha counties.

“It is indeed an honor and privilege to serve the Supreme Court," Weingart said.

Before being elected a judge, Weingart had a private law practice in Hiawatha for 24 years. He is a graduate of Washburn University School of Law, and a past president of the Northeast Kansas and Brown County Bar Association, and of the Kansas School Attorneys Association.

The case Weingart will hear January 30 is:

Appeal No. 118,941: State of Kansas v. Christopher Shawn Pattillo

Shawnee County: (Criminal Appeal) Pattillo, 16, was prosecuted as an adult and convicted of aiding another to commit first-degree murder and other crimes in the gang-related, drive-by shooting of Brian Miller. De'Angelo Martinez was a co-defendant. Two witnesses said Martinez was the shooter and Pattillo was driving the vehicle. The court sentenced Pattillo to a hard-25 life sentence and consecutive terms of incarceration for the additional convictions. Issues on appeal are whether: 1) the aggravated assault served as an inherently dangerous felony for application of the felony murder rule; 2) Pattillo can be convicted of endangering a child if the State did not present any evidence Pattillo knew a child was in the house; 3) there was sufficient evidence to support Pattillo's conviction for discharge of a firearm; 4) the State proved causation for felony murder; 5) the jury instructions on felony murder were correct on causation; 6) Pattillo's convictions were multiplicitous; 7) Pattillo's punishment was duplicative; 8) the jury instructions on great bodily harm were correct; and 9) the district court erred in failing to instruct on the lesser crimes of criminal discharge of a firearm and endangering a child.