May v. Cline, 304 Kan. 671

William May, an inmate, was disciplined under K.A.R. 44-12-301 for fighting after an altercation with inmate Jason Dale; correctional officer Guesnier intervened and used pepper spray.
Guesnier's report and testimony described both inmates throwing punches and not separating despite orders; he testified he could not tell who started the fight and could not determine whether May was defending himself.
May testified he was attacked and was trying to hold on until help arrived; the hearing officer found May guilty, stating there was "no evidence to prove self-defense."
The Reno County District Court granted May relief under K.S.A. 60-1501, concluding the Department had the burden to disprove self-defense and the hearing officer failed to evaluate or produce such evidence.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding KDOC was not required to disprove self-defense and that some evidence supported the fighting finding.
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court, holding K.A.R. 44-12-301 places the absence of self-defense as an element of the offense and KDOC presented no evidence disproving self-defense (violating due process).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process was satisfied by "some evidence" supporting the disciplinary finding	May: Regulation requires DOC to disprove self-defense; no evidence disproved it, so due process violated	Cline: Some evidence that inmates were fighting satisfied due process; KDOC need not disprove self-defense	Held: Due process demands some evidence of every element of the offense; here no evidence disproved self-defense, so due process not satisfied
Who bears the burden to negate self-defense under K.A.R. 44-12-301	May: The regulation's "unless such activity is in self-defense" language makes absence of self-defense an element for DOC to prove	Cline: Self-defense is an affirmative defense; KDOC need not disprove it in disciplinary proceedings	Held: Regulation is clear and makes absence of self-defense an element; DOC must prove it
Standard of review for regulatory interpretation	May: Court should interpret regulation de novo (no agency deference)	Cline: Urged deference to agency interpretation	Held: Court applies unlimited review; no deference to agency interpretation
Whether the disciplinary record contained any evidence negating self-defense	May: Record contains no evidence that May was not defending himself	Cline: Existence of a fight and officer's observations suffice as some evidence against self-defense	Held: Record lacked any evidence disproving self-defense; conviction reversed

Sammons v. Simmons, 267 Kan. 155 (1999) (prison disciplinary decisions satisfy due process if some evidence supports them)
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 (1985) (federal standard: disciplinary findings need only some evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt)
Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987) (common-law rule: affirmative defenses are matters for the defendant to prove)
State v. Longoria, 301 Kan. 489 (2015) (prosecutor must prove all elements of a charged offense)
Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552 (2013) (rejecting deference to agency interpretations of law)
Murphy v. Nelson, 260 Kan. 589 (1996) (interpretation of regulation is a question of law)
Miller v. McKune, 38 Kan. App. 2d 810 (2006) (Court of Appeals precedent holding disciplinary boards need not disprove self-defense)