BY ANDY TAYLOR

The Kansas Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an appeal from a convicted Montgomery County man who killed two Caney people over a drug purchase quarrel in 2003.

The court, in a brief authored by Judge Carol A. Beier, denied the appeal filed by Nathaniel L. Hill, who was convicted of killing April Milholland and her boyfriend, Sam Yanofsky, both of Caney. The bodies of Milholland and Yanofsky were found in a car that had struck a tree near 10th and Mulberry streets in Independence. A co-defendant in the case, Sylvester Jones, was driving the vehicle containing the two bodies to an out-of-town area in an attempt to destroy the car with the two bodies inside. The car went out of control on North 10th Street Road and struck a tree.

That’s when police officers discovered the two bodies and began tracing evidence to their murders in the Jones’ home in Independence. Court testimony revealed that Yanofsky and Milholland owed money to Hill for the purchase of marijuana. A quarrel ensued between Yanofsky and Hill over the drug purchase, resulting in Hill shooting Yanofsky in the head.

Milholland was then raped and subsequently shot by Hill. Hill then directed Jones to assist him in removing the bodies to a vehicle and cleaning up the blood stains and hide any evidence of the murders.

Jones plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and aiding a felon after he agreed to testify against Hill. Hill was subsequently convicted of first-degree murder and given a “hard 50″ prison sentence (50 years before eligibility of parole) after the prosecution withdrew its request for the death penalty.

Hill’s appeal was based on five points, including that the jury should have been instructed on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter; that the prosecution improperly excluded an African-American venire member; that an autopsy photograph should not have been admitted; that an incriminating note purportedly written by Hill should not have been admitted; and that the trial judge erred in handling the issue of Hill’s competence to stand trial.

In speaking for a majority of the state’s highest court, Beier denied Hill’s arguments, saying that each argument was without merit.

“Under the circumstances of this case, there was sufficient evidence that Hill understood the nature and object of the proceedings going on against him . . . rightly comprehended his own condition with reference to such proceedings, and could conduct his defense in a rational manner,” wrote Beier.