City of Topeka v. Mayer
826 P.2d 527
Kan.App.,1992.

After dog owner was convicted in Municipal Court of violation of ordinance making it unlawful to permit dog to attack person not upon owner's premises, and allowing her dog to run at large, owner appealed for de novo trial. After permitting city to amend its complaint, the Shawnee District Court, William Randolph Carpenter, J., found dog owner guilty of permitting dog to bite person upon her premises, and dog owner appealed. The Court of Appeals, Elliott, J., held that: (1) district court properly permitted amendment of complaint; (2) dog owner was not subjected to double jeopardy; (3) ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague; and (4) evidence supported conviction.
Affirmed.

**528 *567 Syllabus by the Court

1. Under the facts of this case, the City may amend its complaint between trial in municipal court and trial de novo in district court, applying Topeka v. Durein, 78 Kan. 661, 97 P. 967 (1908).
2. A penal statute or regulatory ordinance will be void for vagueness unless its **529 language conveys a sufficiently definite warning of the conduct proscribed when measured by common understanding and practice. Following City of Wichita v. Wallace, 246 Kan. 253, 788 P.2d 270 (1990).
3. To be unconstitutional, an ordinance must be shown to be vague in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. Following Hearn v. City of Overland Park, 244 Kan. 638, 772 P.2d 758, cert. denied 493 U.S. 976, 110 S.Ct. 500, 107 L.Ed.2d 503 (1989).
4. Topeka City Code § 8-45 (1991) is not unconstitutionally vague.
5. When a conviction is attacked as based on insufficient evidence, the question on appeal is whether a review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, convinces the appellate court that a rational factfinder could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.