Appellate Decisions

Appell

te Decisions

All opinion digests are available on the KBA website at www.ksbar.org/digests. We also send out a weekly newsletter informing KBA members of the latest decisions. If you do not have access to the KBA members-only site, or if your email address or other contact information has changed, please contact member and communication services at info@ksbar.org or at (785) 234-5696. For the full text of opinions, access the courts’ website at www.kscourts.org

Kansas State Supreme Court

Att rney Discipline

ORDER OF DISBARMENT IN RE SUSAN ELIZABETH VAN NOTE NO. 16,327—AUGUST 26, 2020

FACTS: In 2012, the Disciplinary Administrator initiated an investigation into Van Note after she was charged with two counts of murder in Missouri. Her license was temporarily suspended while the criminal process concluded. Van Note was acquitted on criminal charges and a wrongful death lawsuit was settled. Van Note was disbarred in Missouri in 2017. In a letter signed by Van Note on July 21, 2020, she voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law in Kansas.

HELD: The Court accepts the surrender of Van Note’s license to practice law in Kansas and she is disbarred.

Civil

ADOPTION IN RE ADOPTION OF BABY GIRL G. SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—COURT OF APPEALS IS AFFIRMED, DISTRICT COURT IS AFFIRMED, CASE REMANDED NO. 121,051—JULY 10, 2020

FACTS: Baby Girl G. was born in 2018. The day after her birth the natural mother signed a consent to adoption and relinquished her parental rights. In that consent form, she named two men as possible fathers. The adoptive parents filed actions in district court seeking to terminate the parental rights of natural mother and both men named as possible fathers. A month later, Father filed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity and indicated his intent to contest the adoption. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Father failed to provide meaningful support to natural mother during the final six months of her pregnancy. The district court also found that Father was unfit on several grounds, but it elected not to use them as a basis for termination. Father’s parental rights were terminated. The court of appeals affirmed that ruling but reversed the award of attorney fees and remanded the case to district court for further consideration of that issue. Father’s petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 59- 2136(h)(1)(D); (2) whether there was adequate evidence of a failure to support

HELD: The court declines to address the constitutional issue because it was not raised before the district court or court of appeals. It is not sufficient to raise a new issue for the first time in a petition for review, and counsel presented inconsistent arguments to the appellate courts. There was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision that Father failed to support the natural mother during the last six months of her pregnancy. Father’s non-financial support was minimal and of little value to the mother and his financial support was inconsequential.

DISSENT: (Stegall, J.) Justice Stegall would consider the merits of Father’s constitutional claim in order to serve the ends of justice. Preservation is a prudential rule rather than a jurisdictional bar and it can be waived if justice requires. The disparate treatment for unwed biological fathers in adoption cases is troubling.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 59-2136, -2136(h), -2136(h) (1)

HABEAS CORPUS, RIGHT TO COUNSEL BALBIRNIE V. STATE FRANKLIN DISTRICT COURT— COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED DISTRICT COURT IS REVERSED—CASE REMANDED NO. 115,650—JULY 24, 2020 FACTS: Balbirnie was convicted of second-degree murder, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Throughout that process, Balbirnie consistently proclaimed his innocence and blamed the murder on one of the other people present at the scene of the crime. Within one year of his conviction being affirmed, Balbirnie filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion in which he claimed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and then introduce at trial a recording of a 911 call at which an eyewitness named another person as the murderer. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found

that trial counsel did not perform deficiently and even if he had, Balbirnie failed to establish prejudice. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the district court on the question of trial counsel’s performance, finding that the failure to introduce the 911 call fell below an objective standard for reasonably effective representation. But the panel ultimately affirmed the district court, holding that this deficient performance did not prejudice Balbirnie. The Supreme Court granted Balbirnie’s petition for review.

ISSUES: (1) Performance; (2) prejudice

HELD: Balbirnie prevailed in the Court of Appeals on the issue of deficient performance and did not seek review of that decision. The State did not file a cross-petition for review either, although case law existing at the time the petition was filed suggests such a filing was not necessary. A cursory glance at the Court of Appeals’ decision shows that it correctly ruled that trial counsel’s failure to introduce the 911 call was not a strategic decision was, in fact, objectively unreasonable. A review of the evidence in its totality shows that if the call had been introduced there was a reasonable probability the jury would have made a different decision. This is true even though there was evidence of Balbirnie’s guilt.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-420, -1507

JURISDICTION—TAXATION IN RE EQUALIZATION APPEALS OF TARGET CORPORATION

BOARD OF TAX APPEALS—COURT OF APPEALS

IS AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART,

CASE REMANDED TO THE COURT OF APPEALS NO. 11,228 – JULY 10, 2020

FACTS: Target is one of several commercial real estate owners in Johnson County which appeals the County’s ad valorem tax valuation for the 2016 tax year on seven commercial properties. After an evidentiary hearing, the Board of Tax Appeals issued a summary decision ordering lower values for each property. The Taxpayers promptly requested a full and complete written opinion. Five weeks later, the Taxpayers confirmed that the County did not request a full and complete written opinion and subsequently withdrew their request. The County objected, asking BOTA to issue a full and complete written opinion regardless of the withdrawal. The County noted that it didn’t learn of the withdrawal until it was too late to file its own request. In the alternative, the County asked that BOTA consider the objection as a request for reconsideration of the summary decision. BOTA denied both requests and the County appealed. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and the petition for review was granted.

ISSUES: (1) Jurisdiction; (2) scope of review

HELD: The Kansas Judicial Review Act provides the exclusive means for judicial review of agency action. There is not a final order in this case because there is no full and complete written opinion and the Taxpayers did not seek a trial de novo in district court. The KJRA does allow for limited review of nonfinal agency actions if certain conditions are met. BOTA’s failure to issue a full and complete written opinion is properly considered a nonfinal agency decision. K.S.A. 77-631(a) allows for an appeal from an agency’s failure to act in a timely manner. The County was an aggrieved party, as that term is used in K.S.A. 74-2426(c). BOTA’s refusal to issue the full and complete written opinion was an order and is appealable on an interlocutory basis. The case is remanded to the court of appeals for further consideration of whether BOTA acted properly in failing to issue a full and complete opinion. Because there has not been a final decision the court of appeals cannot yet address the merits of the County’s argument.

Cri in l

APPELLATE PROCEDURE—CONTRACTS—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—EVIDENCE—MOTIONS STATE V. BRAUN ELLIS DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND

REMANDED; COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED NO. 113,762—AUGUST 28, 2020

FACTS: State charged Braun with DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2) for having blood alcohol content of more than 0.08, and in the alternative with DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(3). Braun filed motion to suppress the blood test, arguing the Kansas implied consent law was unconstitutionally coercive. District court denied the motion. In bench trial on a conditioned stipulation of facts to be used for consideration of motion to suppress or as necessary to preserve Braun’s arguments about the motion, district court convicted Braun of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2). Journal entry did not mention the alternative charge. Braun appealed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. In unpublished opinion the Court of Appeals affirmed Braun’s conviction. Panel found the district court should have suppressed the blood test result but that error was harmless because there was sufficient evidence in the stipulated facts to establish that Braun committed the alternative charge of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 8-1567(a)(3). Braun’s petition for review granted on sole issue of whether panel erred in finding harmless error.

ISSUE: (1) Stipulated facts in support of conviction on alternative charge

HELD: Braun’s conviction is reversed. Parties can agree to conditions that limit the circumstances where stipulated facts can be used, and a court is bound by any such conditions or limitations. Here the purpose of the stipulation was solely to determine the issue of law arising from Braun’s motion to suppress, and also conveyed that the facts would not be binding if an appellate court determined that a conviction based on K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2) was not valid. Panel erred by not considering and applying the conditions that limited the binding nature of the parties’ stipulation. District court’s judgment is reversed and case is remanded for further proceedings related only to the alternative count of DUI under K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 8-1567(a)(2).

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 SUPP. 60-261; K.S.A. 2012 SUPP. 8-1001(K), -1567(A)(2), -1567(A)(3)

APPELLATE PROCEDURE—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— EVIDENCE STATE V. BRAZZLE RILEY DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 116,649—JULY 10, 2020

FACTS: Following car stop and subsequent discovery of drugs, Brazzle was convicted of drug-related crimes including possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of oxycodone. During trial, district court found the State’s prior crime evidence of Brazzle’s sale of methamphetamine to undercover detective was admissible to show whether Brazzle intended to distribute the methamphetamine found in the car. On appeal, Brazzle claimed: (1) district court erred in admitting K.S.A. 60-455 evidence related to the prior methamphetamine sales; (2) jury instruction on possession of oxycodone did not require jury to find that he illegally possessed the drug without a prescription; and (3) insufficient evidence supported his conviction for possession of oxycodone. Court of appeals affirmed, finding in part that Brazzle could not claim instructional error on appeal because he advocated for the version of the instruction given to the jury. 54 Kan.App.2d 276 (2018). Review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Evidence of prior crimes; (2) invited error; (3) sufficiency of the evidence

HELD: District court did not err in admitting prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455. Case law on evidence of intent for simple possession is distinguished from possession with intent to distribute. If a defendant argues he or she lacked the intent to distribute drugs, evidence about a prior crime committed by the defendant may be material, especially if evidence establishes similarities between the prior crime and the charged crime. Under facts in this case the prior crimes evidence was material to and probative of Brazzle’s intent to distribute, and the risk for undue prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value.

By failing to argue in his petition for review why the court of appeals erred in its invited error analysis, Brazzle waived any argument he might have as to why the invited error doctrine did not apply to his claim of instructional error.

Sufficient evidence supports Brazzle’s possession of oxycodone conviction. There was circumstantial evidence that oxycodone was part of Brazzle’s illicit drug inventory, and jury could infer Brazzle would not put his own prescription medication in same bag containing drugs that he intended to distribute. Officer’s testimony comparing the appearance of Brazzle’s pills to an image of a pill identified as oxycodone on drugs.com was sufficient. Brazzle did not object to officer’s testimony regarding how he identified the pills found in the car, and did not object to the pills being entered into evidence. Brazzle cannot recast an evidentiary ruling as a sufficiency argument.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-455; K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5702(b), -5705(e)(2), -5706(a), 65-4116(c)(3); K.S.A. 60-404, -455

ATTORNEYS—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MENTAL COMPETENCY STATE V. BURDEN

SUMNER DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 116,819—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Burden was charged with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. District court found she was competent to stand trial pursuant to a court-ordered competency exam and evaluation that found, in part, that Burden had “no significant impairment that is psychiatric in nature.” District court also allowed Burden to represent herself, and appointed standby counsel. Jury convicted her on drug possession charges, and acquitted on the paraphernalia charge. Burden appealed, arguing district court used an incorrect standard to determine whether she was competent to represent herself. Court of appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion. Review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Standard for determining mental competency

HELD: Three distinct but related concepts are examined— mental competency to stand trial, the capacity to waive the right to counsel, and mental competency to self-represent. Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), allows a district court judge to deny a request to waive counsel if a defendant has a severe mental illness. But there is no error when a court does not appoint counsel for a defendant who wishes to exercise the right of self-representation if there is no evidence of the defendant’s severe mental illness. Here, the district court did not err in allowing Burden to exercise her constitutional right of self-representation when the record does not establish that she suffers from a severe mental illness.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3301, -3301(1)

PROCEDURE—JURIES—MOTIONS—STATUTES STATE V. CARTER SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 119,315—JULY 10, 2020

FACTS: State filed charges against Carter arising from Carter hitting and threatening a victim (Crowe) in November 2015, and arising from a December 2015 shooting that resulted in the death of two other victims. District court granted State’s motion to consolidate the charges, finding the charges were connected. Jury convicted Carter of first-degree felony murder, criminal discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and criminal threat. On appeal, he claimed district court erroneously refused to add language to the aiding and abetting instructing that “mere presence” alone does not establish mental culpability to convict under aiding and abetting, citing State v. Llamas, 298 Kan. 246 (2013), and the “better practice” recommendation in State v. Hilt, 2999 Kan. 176 (2014), to give such language. Carter also claimed the district court erred in consolidating the charges.

ISSUE: (1) Jury instruction—aiding and abetting; (2) motion to consolidate

HELD: Court rejects Carter’s argument for converting “better practice” into a legal requirement that “mere presence” language must be included in cases where a defendant is charged under an aiding and abetting theory and requests

the instruction. While there was a modicum of evidence that Carter’s requested instruction was factually appropriate, any possible error in failing to give the requested instruction was harmless given the weight of evidence supporting Carter’s guilt.

District court’s decision to consolidate the charges is affirmed. Cases involving consolidation decisions are discussed. In this case, Carter’s battery of Crowe precipitated the factual setting which led to Carter’s participation in the shooting. District court correctly found a statutory condition for consolidation was met, and did not abuse its discretion in allowing consolidation.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-261; K.S.A. 22-3202, -3202(1), -3202(3), -3203,

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MOTIONS—STATUTES STATE V. EDWARDS SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 120,600—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Jury convicted Edwards in 1996 of first-degree murder, conspiracy to possess with intent to sell hallucinogenic drugs, and aggravated robbery. In 2011, he filed motion for DNA testing of items found at crime scene. District court granted the motion in 2013, and for additional, independent DNA analysis of the evidence. District court held a 2017 hearing and found the DNA results were favorable to Edwards, but denied Edwards’ motion for a new trial because the DNA evidence was “not reasonably probable to lead to a jury reaching a different result.” Edwards appealed.

ISSUE: (1) DNA testing statute

HELD: Even when additional DNA testing ordered under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5212 leads to results favorable to the defense, a district judge does not necessarily abuse his or her discretion by denying a motion for new trial. As in State v. LaPointe, 309 Kan. 299 (2019), the non-DNA evidence against Edwards is strong. District judge did not abuse her discretion by concluding there was no reasonable probability the DNA results would have changed the original trial’s outcome. District judge’s denial of Edwards’ motion for a new trial is affirmed.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-2512, -2512(f)(2)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— EVIDENCE—FOURTH AMENDMENT STATE V. ELLIS LYON DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 120,046—AUGUST 7, 2020

FACTS: Police were called to check on welfare of a person (Ellis) in convenience store bathroom. Ellis stated she was okay and having stomach trouble. Police asked for identification, held Ellis’s driver’s license to run warrant check, arrested her on an outstanding probation violation warrant, and found drugs and paraphernalia in subsequent search. State charged Ellis with drug offenses. She filed motion to suppress, arguing the seizure and subsequent search exceeded the scope of the encounter. State argued the attenuation doctrine set out in Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. __ (2016), legitimized the search. District court denied the motion and convicted Ellis in bench trial. Ellis appealed. Court of Appeals reversed, holding the investigatory detention exceeded the scope of the welfare check and the evidence obtained as a result should have been suppressed. 57 Kan. App. 2d 477 (2019). State’s petition for review granted.

ISSUE: (1) Scope of welfare check; (2) attenuation doctrine

HELD: Under facts of the case, the officer lawfully engaged with Ellis and requested her identification. But police may not lawfully extend a welfare check by running a warrant check on an individual who is the subject of the check unless some other circumstances support prolonging the check and converting it into a detention. Here, the officer had no reasonable suspicion that Ellis was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime. Checking if Ellis “had some pick up order” exceeded the scope of the safety check. Ths constituted an unlawful seizure and consequent search.

Application of the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule is inappropriate on facts in this case. Factors in Strieff are applied finding all weigh against admissibility of the drug evidence under the attenuation doctrine: (1) a very short passage of time; (2) under Kansas case law the discovery of an outstanding warrant was not an attenuating factor in this case; and (3) the clarity of Kansas law forbidding the officer’s illegal conduct supports a finding of flagrant official misconduct. District court’s judgment is reversed and evidence seized subsequent to the initial conduct must be suppressed. Remanded for further proceedings.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.)(joined by Luckert, C.J. and Wilson, J.): Concurs with the result but majority appears to back away from the more stringent requirements in Strief. Under Strief as outlined in State v. Tatro, 310 Kan. 263 (2019), when a preexisting valid warrant is discovered, the only question remaining is whether the unconstitutional conduct was purposeful or flagrant. Agrees with majority’s finding of flagrant misconduct, but would limit the analysis in these circumstances to that question only.

STATUTES: None

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— EVIDENCE—JURY INSTRUCTIONS STATE V. GREEN MONTGOMERY DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 116,366—AUGUST 21, 2020 FACTS: For offenses related to the killing of Green’s exwife’s boyfriend, a jury convicted Green of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated burglary, and arson. On appeal he claimed: (1) district judge should have instructed jury on defense of voluntary intoxication; (2) district judge should instructed jury on lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter; (3) district judge’s failure to give those two instructions deprived Green of his constitutional right to a jury trial; (4) the failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter pushed jury to convict on first-degree premeditated murder even if jurors had reasonable doubt that State had proved its case; (5) district judge erred in admitting into evidence a videotaped interrogation of Green because officers repeatedly challenged his honesty and truthfulness during that interrogation; (6)

appellate decisions district judge erred in refusing to give cautionary instruction about testimony from jailhouse informants; and (7) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Jury instruction—voluntary intoxication; (2) jury instruction—voluntary manslaughter; (3) right to a jury trial; (4) constitutional right to due process; (5) evidence— videotaped statements; (6) cautionary instruction on informant testimony; (7) cumulative error

HELD: Under facts in case, an instruction on voluntary intoxication was not factually appropriate. No evidence of impairment that would prevent the formation of the necessary criminal intent. Instead, Green relies on evidence of his intoxication before and after the crime.

District judge correctly denied Green’s request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction. No evidence that the sleeping victim did anything as Green entered his house that could be characterized as provocation.

District judge’s failure to instruct jury on voluntary intoxication and voluntary manslaughter did not violate Green’s constitutional claim of being denied right to a jury trial where no evidence supported Green’s requests for those instructions.

Green’s argument for extending Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980), to noncapital cases is rejected. Under facts in case, no error under Beck’s letter or its spirit.

Green’s challenge to the admission of videotaped statements he made during police interview, raised for the first time on appeal, is not considered. Even if error to not redact the interviewers’ comments on credibility, the error would be far from dispositive. Court finds no established exception to the preservation problem, and notes this case is a poster child for adherence to the contemporaneous rule.

District judge did not err in denying Green’s request for a cautionary instruction on informant testimony. Neither jailhouse informant was acting as an agent for the State when the informant first received incriminating information from

Green, and multiple witnesses and other evidence corroborated each informant’s testimony.

Cumulative error doctrine not applicable where there is no error or only a single error.

CONCURRENCE (Rosen, J.)(joined by Stegall, J.): Agrees that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not factually appropriate because there was no evidence indicating Green was impaired at the time of the crime. Disagrees with that portion of majority’s decision to the extent it implies the presence of any evidence, however slight, mandates the district court to instruct and skip the gatekeeping test required in the affirmative defense statute

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5108(c), 60-261;

K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5205(b), -5404(a)(1); K.S.A. 60-404, -455, -1507

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL LAW— EVIDENCE—STATUTES STATE V. HARRIS

SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND

REMANDED; COURT OF APPEALS—REVERSED NO. 116,515—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Harris, a convicted felon on parole, was in an altercation when he opened a pocketknife with a 3.5 inch ser68 The Journal of the Kansas Bar Association rated blade for protection, then dropped it when police arrived. State charged him with aggravated assault, criminal possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, and criminal use of a weapon. Harris filed motion to dismiss the possession charge, claiming the statutory definition in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 of a “knife” was unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied. District court denied the motion. Harris also sought to introduce evidence of parole officer who advised him he could carry a knife less than 4 inches long, and similar info in Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) orientation and handbook. Adopting State’s position that parole officers and KDOC staff are not legally authorized to interpret statutes, district court excluded all evidence in support of Harris’ mistake-of-law defense. Harris appealed, claiming district court erred by rejecting his vagueness challenge to the statute and by excluding all evidence supporting his mistakeof -fact defense. In unpublished opinion Court of Appeals rejected the constitutional challenge, but reversed the trial court’s evidentiary ruling on the mistake-of-fact evidence and remanded for a new trial. Review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Constitutionality of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21- 6304; (2) evidence—mistake of law defense

HELD: Case is resolved on a facial challenge to the statute. The residual clause “or any other dangerous or deadly cutting instrument of like character” in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide an explicit and objective standard of enforcement. Similar problem in City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 298 Kan. 540 (2013)(noise ordinance is unconstitutionally vague). This constitutional failure began with legislative enactment that impermissibly delegated legislative power to the executive and judicial branches.

Because case is resolved in Harris’ favor on constitutional grounds, the evidentiary issue raised in State’s petition is not reached.

DISSENT (Biles, J.) (joined by Rosen, J. and Green, J.): K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304 is not unconstitutionally vague on its face or as applied to Harris. Majority imposes too strict a standard on Legislature’s ability to formulate criminal laws. Analyzing K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6304(c)(1) in light of the facts, the statute is sufficiently clear to have informed Harris it was unlawful to possess his knife, and the statute is sufficiently clear to stave off any contention that authorities arbitrarily prosecuted him for having it. Photo of Harris’ knife is attached. Majority’s reading of Farmway is criticized.

Would reverse Harris’ conviction because he is entitled to pursue a mistake-of-law defense. KDOC is legally authorized to interpret the criminal-possession statute, and the KDOC handbook could be read by Harris as containing the agency’s official interpretation of the statute. Trial court’s error in not allowing Harris to pursue a mistake-of-law defense was not harmless in this case.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5207(b)(4), -6304, -6304(c)(1), -6304(c)(2); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5207(b) (4); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5111(aa)(5), -5111(p)(2), 75-5217, -5217(a), -5217(b), -5217(c), -5217(d); K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 21- 630; K.S.A. 21-6301, -6304, 75-5201, -5216

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— JURIES—STATUTES STATE V. HARRISON JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 116,670—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Jury convicted Harrison of various crimes committed in 2015. During deliberation, judge discussed jury question with Harrison, counsel and prosecutor all present. All agreed to send jury a written response. Harrison appealed on four claims of trial error, including his challenge at not being present when written response was passed to the jury by court staff. In unpublished opinion court of appeals affirmed the convictions, holding in part the district court violated Harrison’s constitutional right to be present at a critical stage in the proceedings by responding to the jury in writing rather than giving the answer in open court with Harrison present, but the error was harmless. Review granted limited to the district court’s failure to have Harrison present when jury received the answer.

ISSUE: (1) Response to jury’s question

HELD: District court complied with both statutory and constitutional requirements. 2014 revision of K.S.A. 22-3420 allows judges to answer jury questions in open court or in writing. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a) is analyzed in light of that revision. If a criminal trial judge responds to a jury question in writing by having court personnel deliver the response to the jury in the jury room: the delivery is not a stage of the trial at which a defendant must be present under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a); K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3420(d) does not require a defendant’s presence when the jury receives that response; and the defendant’s right to be present during critical stages of the proceedings is not a violation under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause or the Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in the record reasonably suggests Harrison’s presence was essential or critical to a fair and just determination of a substantial issue. Review of panel’s harmless error analysis is unnecessary.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3405(a), -3420(d); K.S.A. 22-2102, -3405(1), -3420(3)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MOTIONS— POSTCONVICTION RELIEF—STATUTES STATE V. HILL OSAGE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 119,359—JULY 17, 2020 FACTS: Pursuant to amended plea agreement, Hill entered no a contest plea in 2000 to various charges including premeditated first-degree murder. No direct appeal taken. Hill then pursued various post-conviction motions: 2004 motion under K.S.A. 60-1507; 2008 motion to withdraw his no contest pleas; 2014 and 2015 motions including new motion to withdraw pleas and motion to correct illegal sentence. District court denied each motion, and when appealed, the court of appeals affirmed. Present appeal is from district court’s denial of Hill’s 2017 pro se “Motion to Set Aside a Void Judgment Under Due Process of Law and K.S.A. 22-3210.” The district court construed the motion as one to withdraw pleas under K.S.A. 22-3210, and denied the motion as untimely.

appellate decisions District court further found no manifest injustice supported withdrawal of the pleas, found Hill was represented by competent counsel, there was no coercion or unfair advantage taken of Hill, and his pleas were knowingly and understandingly made. Hill appealed, arguing trial court errors, including incorrectly analyzing the motion as one to withdraw plea instead of a motion to void convictions and sentence, denied Hill due process.

ISSUE: (1) Due process—motion to correct illegal sentence

HELD: Trial judge correctly construed Hill’s various arguments as another effort to withdraw his pleas. Hill’s 2017 motion was filed outside the one year time limitation added to K.S.A. 22-3210 in 2009, and no grounds of excusable neglect for his untimely filing are asserted by Hill or otherwise demonstrated. Hill’s motion is procedurally barred. Trial court’s decision is affirmed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3210, -3210(a), -3210(b), -3210(d), -3210(d)(1), -3210(d)(2), -3210(e)(1), -3210(e)(2); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3210, -3210(e)(1); K.S.A. 60-1507

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—MOTIONS—SENTENCING—STATUTES STATE V. JUAREZ

LYON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 118,543—AUGUST 28, 2020

FACTS: Juarez entered plea to aggravated battery of prison guard. District court found Juarez guilty but did not notify him of obligation to register as a violent offender under Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), and KORA did not list aggravated battery as a crime that automatically required registration. Juarez remained confined until sentencing hearing six weeks later. At sentencing, district court exercised its discretion to require Juarez to register as a violent offender under KORA. Juarez objected to lack of notice to register but offered no evidence on the issue. Sentencing continued to address restitution. Juarez again objected to lack of notice but again offered no evidence and asked for no additional time to present evidence. Three weeks later, sentence became final upon restitution order. Juarez appealed. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion, relying on State v. Marinelli, 307 Kan. 768 (2018). Sole issue on review is whether the notice provided by the district court violated Juarez’ right to due process.

ISSUE: (1) Due process—notice of obligation to register as violent offender

HELD: Validity of the district court’s registration order is not challenged and is presumed valid. District court’s failure to provide timely notice of Juarez’s obligation under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-4904(a)(1)(A) did not constitute a denial of procedural due process because Juarez failed to demonstrate prejudice. He neither presented additional evidence nor asked for the opportunity to do so with respect to district court’s exercise of discretion to order registration, and he remained incarcerated with no responsibility to register between the time the district court should have provided notice and the time it actually did so.

CONCURRENCE (Biles, J.): Concurs with the result but

appellate decisions believes Marinelli controls disposition. District court’s timing error does not excuse the registration obligation, and Juarez did not show any prejudice.

CONCURRENCE (Stegall, J.): Concurs that Juarez’ due process rights were not violated, but does so because district court’s registration order was not valid. Based on State v.

Thomas, 307 Kan. 733 (2018), once Juarez was convicted the district court lost its opportunity to create the necessary precondition for a registration obligation to spring into existence through judicial fact-finding. When a district court does not make the necessary fact-finding at time of conviction - and the notice is not given - no process has been denied because the defendant is not an offender required to register under

KORA.

DISSENT (Rosen, J.)(joined by Beier, J.): Would find

Juarez’ due process rights were violated. Stands by his dissents in previous cases that KORA is punitive in effect, and thus is a consequence of Juarez’ plea. Marinelli is distinguished.

Here, Juarez plead no contest to a crime while completely unaware the court would later require him to register under

KORA, and he was never offered the opportunity to withdraw that plea by demonstrating good cause (pre-sentencing motion) instead of having to show manifest injustice (postsentencing motion.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5413(b)(2)(A), 22- 4901 et seq., -4902(e)(1), -4902(a)(5), -4904(a)(1)(A); K.S.A. 22-4902, -4905

APPEALS—APPELLATE PROCEDURE—CRIMINAL LAW—STATUTES STATE V. LINDEMUTH

SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND

REMANDED; COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED NO. 116,937—AUGUST 28, 2020

FACTS: Jury convicted Lindemuth of one count of criminal threat, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5415(a)(1). Court of Appeals reversed, holding trial court erred by rejecting proposed jury instruction on workplace defense. 55 Kan. App. 2d 419 (2018). State sought review of panel’s decision on factual appropriateness of the workplace defense instruction. Days prior to oral argument, State v. Boettger, 310 Kan. 880 (2019) and State v. Johnson, 310 Kan. 835 (2019), held the provision in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5415(a)(1), allowing a conviction if a threat of violence is made in reckless disregard for causing fear, is unconstitutionally overbroad. Lindemuth filed Supreme Court Rule 6.09 letter arguing his appeal was affected and requesting reversal of his conviction as in Johnson. Supplemental briefing ordered.

ISSUE: (1) Change of law—constitutional error

HELD: Panel’s judgment is affirmed as right for the wrong reason. Lindemuth’s conviction cannot stand after Johnson, regardless of outcome on State’s issue for review. Like Johnson, the trial record provides no basis for court to discern whether jury concluded the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lindemuth committed criminal threat intentionally, and court cannot conclude the State met its burden of showing the constitutional error was harmless. District court’s judgment is reversed and case is remanded with directions.

DISSENT (Biles, J.)(joined by Stegall, J.): Would find the constitutional error harmless under the rationale in Justice Stegall’s dissenting opinion in Johnson, and would keep the case to reach the instructional error claim.

DISSENT (Rosen, J.): Would find the constitutional error harmless. While there was strong evidence supporting intentional conduct in Johnson, he agreed with majority that there was also evidence of recklessness. Here he sees no evidence of recklessness where Lindemuth simply denied making any threatening statements.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5202(h), -5202(j), -5223(a), -5415(a)(1)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—EVIDENCE—PROSECUTORS STATE V. MARTINEZ SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 119,739—JULY 24, 2020

FACTS: Martinez convicted of first-degree premeditated murder and other crimes arising from a drive-by shooting. On appeal he claimed the prosecutor erred in closing arguments by saying “The defense has speculated about other peoples [sic] motives, but the State has actually presented evidence.” Martinez argues this impermissibly shifted the burden of proof and infringed on his constitutional protection against compulsory self-incrimination.

ISSUE: (1) Prosecutorial error

HELD: Prosecutor’s statements were within the wide latitude allowed in closing arguments. The comments, when read in context, appropriately explained how the evidence supported the State’s theory of the case, and did not offend Martinez’ constitutional right to a fair trial. Prosecutor did not comment on Martinez’ failure to testify or argue Martinez had to prove that he lacked a motive or that witnesses had a motive to lie. Prosecutor did not suggest the defense had any burden to do something in response to the State’s evidence or that Martinez needed to testify and explain his action. Nor did the prosecutor shift the burden or comment on Martinez’ failure to testify by pointing out the defense’s argument rested on an inference.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 60-439

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL LAW— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—EVIDENCE— PROSECUTORS—STATUTES STATE V. MOORE RENO DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,040—AUGUST 21, 2020

FACTS: Moore was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. The trial judge allowed State to introduce incriminating statements Moore made during police interview, finding Moore made no unequivocal request for counsel. Trial judge also denied Moore’s request for voluntary intoxication instructions on first-degree premeditated murder and lesserincluded crime of intentional second-degree murder. On appeal Moore claimed: (1) district judge should have suppressed evidence of his incriminating statements; (2) it was error to refuse to give voluntary intoxication instructions; (3) prosecutor committed error in closing argument; and (4) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Motion to suppress; (2) voluntary intoxication jury instruction; (3) prosecutorial error; (4) cumulative error

HELD: District judge did not err in denying the motion to suppress. Moore’s statement that “Well, I guess it’s lawyer time now then,” considered as a whole and in context, is ambiguous. And his statement ten minutes later that he was “done, all right,” followed by continued talking on his part did not transform his earlier statement into an unambiguous invocation of right to counsel.

District judge did not err in denying voluntary intoxication instructions. Even assuming such an instruction was legally appropriate, it was not factually appropriate where there was no evidence of impairment negatively affecting Moore’s ability to form the requisite intent.

No error found in prosecutor’s closing argument by stating that premeditation can be seen from Moore standing there and pulling the trigger over and over again, and by decrying the American tradition of criticizing the police. These statements did not make an equivalent to the forbidden argument that premeditation can be formed instantaneously, and did not appeal to jurors’ passions or prejudices. Prosecutor’s rebuttal statement that Moore may have been eliminating his competition was error because this unsupported speculation on Moore’s motive argued facts not in evidence. In light of overwhelming evidence against Moore, however, this error was harmless.

Cumulative error doctrine not applicable where only a single instance of a harmless prosecutorial error found.

CONCURRENCE (Rosen, J.)(joined by Stegall, J.): Agrees that a voluntary intoxication instruction was not factually appropriate because there was no evidence indicating Moore was impaired at the time of the crime. Disagrees with that portion of majority’s discussion on the issue to the extent it relies on State v. Green, __ Kan. __ (this day decided), that finds the presence of any evidence, however slight, mandates the district court to instruct and skip the gatekeeping test required in the affirmative defense statute

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5108(c), -5205(b)

APPEALS—CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL

LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—JURY INSTRUCTIONS—STATUTES STATE V. PATTILLO SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 118,941—AUGUST 21, 2020

FACTS: Pattillo drove the van in which an occupant fired shots, killing Miller and hitting the residence which was occupied by Miller’s seven-year-old nephew. Jury convicted Pattillo of felony murder, aggravated assault for threatening Miller with a gun, felony discharge of a firearm, and aggravated endangering of a child. On appeal, Pattillo challenged whether the underlying felonies supported the felony-murder conviction, and whether sufficient evidence supported the convictions. He also claimed his convictions for discharge of a firearm and felony murder violated both the Double Jeopardy clause and K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b), and claimed the trial judge erred in instructing the jury.

ISSUES: (1) Underlying felonies—merger doctrine; (2) underlying felonies—sufficiency of the evidence; (3) underlying

appellate decisions felonies—multiplicity; (4) multiple convictions and punishments; (5) jury instructions

HELD: Merger doctrine applies to Patillo’s aggravated assault conviction, and under facts in case, the aggravated assault merged with the homicide. If this were the only underlying felony, the felony-murder conviction would be reversed.

Pursuant to K.S.A. 2019 Sup. 21-5402(c)(1), merger doctrine does not apply to Pattillo’s convictions for aggravated endangering a child and discharge of a firearm at a dwelling, but under facts in case, sufficient evidence supports both underlying felonies. Sufficient circumstantial evidence that Pattillo was aware of the risk to the seven-year-old who lived in the dwelling and consciously disregarded that risk. Statutes for child endangerment and aggravated child endangerment are compared to reject Pattillo’s argument that State was required to prove he knew a child was in the house at the time of the shooting. No language in K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21- 5601(b)(1) or the definition of reckless conduct requires that a person endangering a child must know a child is in danger. State v. Herndon, 52 Kan. App. 2d 857 (2016), rev. denied 306 Kan. 1324 (2017), is factually distinguished. Sufficient evidence also supports Pattillo’s conviction for criminal discharge of a firearm at a dwelling, and Miller’s death occurred during the res gestae of the acts of discharging a weapon at a dwelling and of endangering a child.

Cumulative punishments for both criminal discharge of a firearm and felony murder violate neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109. Same elements test in State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453 (2006), is not employed where the legislature has expressed its intent to allow cumulative punishments for felony murder and those underlying felonies that do not merge with the homicide, such as discharge of a firearm at a dwelling. Pattillo can be sentenced for both felony murder and the enhanced punishment for discharging a firearm resulting in great bodily harm.

No merit to Pattillo’s jury instruction claims. Invited-error doctrine precludes review of Patillo’s claims regarding the felony-murder jury instruction and the criminal discharge instruction. And Pattillo failed to show clear error in district judge’s failure to instruct jury on the lesser-included offenses of criminal discharge or of endangering a child.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109, -5109(b), -5109(b) (1), -5109(b)(2) -5202(j), -5402(a)(2), -5402(c), -5402(c)(1)(S), -5402(c)(2), -5402(c)(2)(D), -5601(a), -5601(b)(1), -5601(c)(1), -6308, -6308(a)(1)(A), -6308(a)(3)(B), -6308(b), -6308(b)(1) (A), -6308(b)(1)(B), 22-3414(3)K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5402(c) (1)(O), -5402(c)(1)(S) -5601(b)(1). -6308(a)(1)(A)

CRIMINAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— JURY INSTRUCTIONS—PROSECUTORS— SENTENCING—STATUTES STATE V. THOMAS CHAUTAUQUA DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED IN PART,

REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED COURT OF APPEALS—AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART NO. 115,990—JULY 24, 2020

FACTS: Thomas convicted of aggravated battery, abuse of a child, and aggravated endangering of a child. On appeal he

argued: (1) district court erred by giving jury instructions that allowed the jury to convict him of aggravated battery if it found he intended the conduct but not the harm; (2) prosecutor improperly inflamed the passions and prejudices of jurors during closing argument by showing them photos of the child’s injuries and repeatedly telling them to acquit only if the jurors thought it was acceptable to inflict such injuries on “your child;” (3) cumulative effect of these two errors denied him a fair trial; and (4) district court erroneously scored Thomas’ 2001 out-of-state Virginia conviction for domestic assault and battery as a person crime. Court of Appeals affirmed in unpublished opinion, finding in part the aggravated battery jury instruction was erroneous but the error was harmless, and prosecutor’s if-you-think-it’s-okay statements did not encourage jurors to consider factors outside the evidence and law. Review granted.

ISSUES: (1) Jury instructions—aggravated battery; (2) prosecutorial error; (3) cumulative error, (4) sentencing

HELD: District court’s aggravated battery instructions were erroneous. Under State v. Hobbs, 301 Kan. 203 (2015), “knowingly” in elements of aggravated battery means more than just proving the defendant intended to engage in the underlying conduct, and requires State to prove the defendant acted when he or she was aware the conduct was reasonably certain to cause the result.

Prosecutor’s If-you-think-it’s-okay statements were error. Panel’s reasons for finding that prosecutor’s statement did not encourage jurors to consider factors outside the evidence and law are examined and criticized as conflating the analysis of error with whether error was harmless. As to the child abuse charge the prosecutor’s error was harmless. Thomas’ conviction on this charge is affirmed. As to the aggravated battery charge for which instructional error was found, the combined impact of these errors must be considered.

Cumulative error denied Thomas a fair trial on the aggravated battery charge. The erroneous jury instruction allowed the jury to find guilt based on a less culpable intent than required by the statute, and State’s repeated comments urged jury to convict based on emotional consideration rather than a reasoned and deliberate consideration of facts and law. The aggravated battery conviction is reversed and case is remanded for a new trial on this charge.

Assault and battery, as defined by Virginia common law, is broader than Kansas battery and could encompass behavior that is not a crime in Kansas. Under State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018), district court incorrectly calculated Thomas’ criminal history score and should have scored the 2001 Virginia conviction as a nonperson crime. Remanded for resentencing.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6811(e); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5413, -5413(b), -5413(b)(1)(A), -5413(g), -5602, -6811(e), 22-3414(3)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— EVIDENCE— JURY INSTRUCTIONS—PROSECUTORS STATE V. TIMLEY SHAWNEE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 120,414—AUGUST 7, 2020

FACTS: Timley convicted of first-degree premeditated murder. During trial, Timley’s cellphone records including the cell towers accessed were admitted into evidence without objection, and a detective using Per Call Measurement Data (PCMD) from Sprint testified about the relative position of Timley’s phone throughout the day of the shooting. On appeal Timley claimed: (1) prosecutor erred during opening and closing arguments by making statements concerning the location of Timley’s phone at the time of the shooting; (2) district court erred in admitting the detective’s cell tower maps and accompanying testimony because detective lacked necessary expertise; (3) district court committed clear error by failing to instruct jury on intentional second-degree murder as a lesser included offense; (4) district court’s failure to instruct jury on lesser included offenses violated Timley’s right to due process; and (5) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Prosecutorial error; (2) admission of evidence; (3)jury instruction on lesser included offense; (4) due process; (5) cumulative error

HELD: Prosecutor’s remarks during closing argument did not stretch the PCMD distance from a cell tower to Timley’s phone into a certitude, and thereby did not exceed the wide latitude extended to prosecutors. Prosecutor’s opening statement, by postulating that Timley’s phone was “exactly” at the site of the shooting, barely avoided error, but even if error, no possibility the prosecutor’s remark contributed to the verdict.

Under facts of the case, no expert witness was needed. The detective’s exhibits and accompanying testimony did not require any specialized knowledge or expertise beyond that which he was demonstrated to possess.

District court erred in failing to sua sponte instruct jury on lesser included offense of intentional second-degree murder, but under facts of the case, no clear error is found.

In noncapital case, a district court’s failure to sua sponte instruct on lesser included offense does not violate a defendant’s constitutional right to due process. Based on State v. Becker, 311 Kan. 176 (2020), and State v. Love, 305 Kan. 716 (2017), no due process violation found in district court’s failure to issue a lesser included offense instruction sua sponte.

Cumulative error claim is rejected. Only one harmless error found in district court’s failure to sua sponte instruct jury on a lesser included offense. Even if prosecutor’s opening statement was harmless error, it bore no relation to the instructional error.

CONCURRENCE (Biles, J.)(joined by Rosen, J. and Ward, S.J.): Disagrees that prosecutor’s opening statement was fair comment. Would hold it was error for prosecutor in opening statement to tell jury the cell tower data would reflect Timley’s exact location, but agrees the error is harmless for reasons stated by majority.

STATUTES: None

Kansas Court of Appeals

Civil

JURISDICTION—MUNICIPALITIES—OFFENDER REGISTRATION CITY OF SHAWNEE V. ADEM JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,328—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: Adem was convicted of sexual battery in Shawnee Municipal Court and he filed a notice of appeal to the district court. A jury convicted him as charged in district court. As part of his sentence, Adem was required to register as a sex offender under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. He now appeals that finding.

ISSUES: (1) Appellate jurisdiction; (2) applicability of KORA to municipal court convictions;

HELD: The court has jurisdiction to consider Adem’s appeal because KORA allows for appeals where registration has been triggered by district court findings. KORA acts in concert with, but not as part of, the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure or other sentencing statutes. It is its own separate act with its own regulatory purposes. Adem is correct that there is no statute that specifically applies KORA to violations of municipal codes. But K.S.A. 22-4902(b)(7) defines a sex offender as any person who has been convicted of an offense that is “comparable” to one specifically enumerated in the Act. The municipal sexual battery act is identical to the state statute, and Adem was properly required to register under KORA.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-4902(b)(5), -4902(b) (7), -4902(t)(1); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3602, -3602(a); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 21-5505(a); K.S.A. 22-2102, -2103; -3602, -3610(a), 46-1211(b)

CHILD SUPPORT—JURISDICTION CHALMERS V. BURROUGH SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,108—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: A Florida district court required Chalmers to pay Burrough child support to help care for their daughter. The support amount was based on Chalmers’ income as a player for the Miami Heat basketball team. Chalmers retired from the team in 2018 and moved away from Florida. Burrough and the child are Kansas residents. After his employment changed, Chalmers wanted to modify his child support obligation. But he could not do so in Florida because he was no longer a Florida resident. In 2018, Chalmers filed a petition to register and modify the Florida order in Kansas under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA). Burrough did not dispute Chalmers’ attempt to register the judgment, even though he did not comply with UIFSA requirements by including copies of the Florida support order with the filing. The district court registered the Florida order in Kansas and later temporarily modified the support obligation as agreed to by the parties. Burrough then filed a motion to set aside, claiming that she never agreed to the terms. Chalmers also moved for permission to amend his petition to add the required copies of the Florida support order. Burrough countered with a motion to dismiss based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Florida support order was never properly registered because Chalmers did not comply with UIFSA requirements when registering the order. The district court agreed with Burrough and vacated its modification of the support order, finding that the presence of a certified copy of the Florida support order was fundamental to registering the order in Kansas. Chalmers appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Whether objection to jurisdiction was waived; (2) whether substantial compliance with UIFSA is adequate

HELD: Kansas only has jurisdiction to modify an out-ofstate child support order if that order is first registered in this state. It is undisputed that Chalmers failed to attach to his registration petition two copies, including one certified copy, of his Florida order. Challenges to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even outside of the 20-day window contemplated by UIFSA. A Kansas court has no authority to modify an out-of-state child support order until that order is properly registered in Kansas. Litigants are not expected to strictly comply with UIFSA requirements. But attachment of the Florida order was a critical component of the UIFSA registration requirements. The failure to attach two copies of the order meant that Chalmers did not substantially comply with UIFSA and the order was never properly registered in Kansas, divesting the district court of jurisdiction to modify it.

DISSENT: (Atcheson, J.) UIFSA’s procedural requirements should not be equated with subject matter jurisdiction. The district court had jurisdiction to modify Chalmers’ out-ofstate child support order.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-36,204(b), -36,205, -36,602(a), -36,602(b), -36,603(a), -36,605, -36,606, -36,607, 36,609, -36,610, -36,611(a)

DIVORCE—PARENTING TIME

IN RE MARRIAGE OF DAVIS AND GARCIA-BEBEK SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,110—JULY 24, 2020

FACTS: Davis and Garcia-Bebek divorced in 2014. They shared joint legal custody of two minor children and Garcia-

Bebek had permission to take the children to visit family in his native country of Peru every other year. In 2018, Davis sought to be awarded sole legal custody of the children after Garcia-Bebek was charged with three federal crimes. Perhaps because of his legal issues, Garcia-Bebek moved back to Peru. But he asked for reasonable parenting time which would include having the children visit him in Peru for up to 30 days at a time. The district court initially ruled in Garcia-Bebek’s favor but was swayed to reconsider by Davis’s argument that Garcia-Bebek’s crimes showed that he was untrustworthy, making international parental kidnapping a realistic possibility. Garcia-Bebek appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Parenting time outside of the United States

HELD: The district court did not prevent Garcia-Bebek from exercising his parenting time. It just prevented him from doing so in Peru. There was nothing to prevent GarciaBebek from visiting the children in their home country. It is undisputed that there is an outstanding indictment in a federal criminal case and a warrant for his arrest in Kansas. This evidence is sufficient to support the district court’s decision preventing the children from visiting Garcia-Bebek in Peru.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 23-3203(a), -3208(a)

DUI—SEARCH AND SEIZURE CITY OF COLBY V. FOSTER

THOMAS DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED NO. 121,373—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: A municipal court convicted Foster of DUI, and Foster appealed to district court. Prior to trial, Foster filed a motion to suppress evidence, including the breathalyzer results. During a hearing on that motion, Foster discovered that law enforcement administered the breath test before providing the implied consent advisories. The district court denied the motion, holding that at the time Foster was arrested, there was no requirement to provide the advisories because Foster was given the breath test incident to arrest. Foster was convicted after a bench trial, and he appealed.

ISSUE: (1) Whether the district court erred by denying the motion to suppress

HELD: The law in effect at the time of the criminal act controls. Foster was arrested on May 6, 2018, and on that date the amendments to K.S.A. 8-1001 had not yet been enacted. K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1001(k) required that Foster receive notice of his statutory rights. There is not substantial evidence that Foster consented to the search and because he never received the statutory advisory, his consent could not have been knowing or voluntary. Similarly, Kansas law required that Foster be given the consent advisory even if the search of the breath test was done incidental to an arrest. It was not enough for the officer to deliver the implied consent advisories after the breath test had been conducted. That was not substantial compliance. The evidence should have been suppressed.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 8-1001(a), -1001(b), -1001(k)

appellate decisions

DUI—IMPLIED CONSENT

FISHER V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DOUGLAS DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 118,830—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Officer Russell saw Fisher speeding through town. Russell caught up with Fisher, who showed signs of impairment including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and an unsteady gait. Russell arrested Fisher and gave him the implied consent advisories from the DC-70 form. Fisher refused to take a blood or breath test without an attorney present, so Russell obtained a warrant to draw blood. The test confirmed that Fisher was under the influence, and his driver’s license was subsequently suspended. The suspension was affirmed by both the Kansas Department of Revenue and the district court, which found that reasonable grounds existed to require testing. Fisher appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Probable cause to arrest; (2) adequacy of implied consent advisory

HELD: Russell observed Fisher speeding and running a red light. Russell also had slurred speech and bloodshot eyes, and he smelled strongly of alcohol. Under the totality of the circumstances, there was substantial competent evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that Russell had reasonable grounds to believe that Fisher was driving under the influence. The DC-70 form given to Fisher did not tell him that he had a constitutional right to refuse to submit to the test. An arresting officer must substantially comply with statutory notice provisions. In this case, Russell substantially complied by providing the implied consent notices from the revised DC-70 form. Fisher is correct that a driver is not required to consent to a requested test. But the use of the word “requires” in the statute is not by itself unduly coercive. The text, when read in its entirety, clearly informs drivers that they have the right to refuse testing.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(a), -1001(k), -1020(q); K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 8-1025

DUI—EXCLUSIONARY RULE JOHNSON V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE COWLEY DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 119,151—JULY 17, 2020 FACTS: Trooper LaVelle responded to reports of a onevehicle accident. He waited on the scene while EMS treated Johnson, the driver. As EMS was walking Johnson to his car, LaVelle noticed that Johnson was swaying as he walked. EMS told LaVelle that Johnson had given the wrong birth date while in the ambulance, and they noticed that he smelled strongly of alcohol. LaVelle noticed the same thing, along with bloodshot eyes. Johnson failed the field sobriety tests that he performed. As a result. LaVelle arrested Johnson and gave him a copy of the DC-70 form before asking him to submit to an evidentiary breath test. Johnson agreed to the breath test, which revealed that his breath alcohol level was over the legal limit. Johnson received the DC-27 form and his driver’s license was suspended. The Kansas Department of Revenue affirmed the suspension, so Johnson sought judicial review. The district court found that the encounter between LaVelle and Johnson was appropriate, and Johnson appealed.

appellate decisions

ISSUES: (1) Reasonable grounds to request a breath test; (2) due process violation

HELD: In order to request an evidentiary breath test,

LaVelle needed to have reasonable grounds to believe that

Johnson was driving under the influence and Johnson had to be under arrest, in custody, or involved in a car accident.

In this case, Johnson was in an accident which damaged property. There was also probable cause that Johnson was driving under the influence, and the district court reviewed the evidence under the correct standard. The district court’s decision was supported by substantial competent evidence, and the appellate court will not reweigh the evidence. It is undisputed that some of the information contained in the implied consent advisory was later declared unconstitutional.

But criminal DUI law does not apply here—specifically, the exclusionary rule has no application in an administrative license proceeding. And even if it did, the good faith exception would apply here. Johnson failed to prove that he suffered a violation of his procedural due process rights. And any substantive due process analysis must be specifically analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Johnson could not prove that he suffered a substantive due process injury under the Fourth

Amendment.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 8-1001, -1002(a); K.S.A. 77-621(a)(1), -621(c)

IMPLIED CONSENT—JURISDICTION

SANDATE V. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE JOHNSON DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 119,514—JULY 17, 2020

FACTS: Officer Jordan was driving behind Sandate and noticed that he was not maintaining a lane or signaling lane changes. Jordan initiated a traffic stop and arrested Sandate, who admitted to consuming alcohol, showed signs of impairment, failed field sobriety tests and refused a preliminary breath test. Jordan gave Sandate the appropriate DC-70 form when requesting the test and the appropriate DC-27 form after the refusal. The Kansas Department of Revenue affirmed the suspension, as did the district court after Sandate requested judicial review. Sandate appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Subject matter jurisdiction; (2) substantial compliance of the DC-70 form; (3) use of the word “require”

HELD: Although other panels of the court of appeals have found otherwise, the district court did have subject matter jurisdiction. Any given court of appeals panel is not bound by another panel’s decision. Each panel conducts an independent analysis and comes to its own conclusion. The DC-27 form has two components: notification and certification. It acts like a charging document and charging documents do not bestow or confer subject matter jurisdiction and defects in a complaint do not deprive a court of power to hear the case. KDOR had jurisdiction to suspend Sandate’s driver’s license. Sandate did not properly preserve for review part of his argument. The evidence before the district court shows that Jordan substantially complied with K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(k), and Kansas has never required strict compliance. Although the DC-70 uses the word “require,” it is not coercive.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 8-259, -1001(k), -1002, -1002(a), -1020; K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001(k), -1002(a), -1002(f)

ATTORNEYS—CONSUMER PROTECTION HERNANDEZ V. PISTOTNIK SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 120,228—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: Yudi Hernandez was badly injured in an automobile accident at the age of 13. Yudi’s older sister, Mirna, helped her family find an attorney to act on Yudi’s behalf. A family friend recommended Brad Pistotnik based on Brad’s television commercials. Yudi and her family had an initial consultation with Brian Pistotnik, and she retained the Pistotnik firm to represent her. The firm obtained settlement officers for policy limits from all involved parties. But Yudi’s father fired the Pistotnik firm and hired Steven Brave to complete the settlement. Yudi received her settlement, but Brian sued her father to recover the costs and attorney fees that were detailed in an attorney fee lien. Yudi sued the Pistotnik firm, claiming they defrauded her under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. Brad moved for summary judgment, claiming that there was no evidence of fraud and that Yudi was not an aggrieved party under the KCPA. The district court granted Brad’s motion, and Yudi appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Applicability of the KCPA; (2) fraud claim; (3) viability of discovery requests; (4) transfer of venue

HELD: The KCPA does not define the term “aggrieved.” But case law clarifies that in order to recover under the KCPA, Yudi must show that she was legally harmed and that her harm was causally connected to Brad’s advertising. The filing of the attorney fee lien did not harm Yudi. And Yudi cannot show that she relied on any representations in Brad’s advertisements when hiring the firm—she was in a medically-induced coma at the time and played no part in the decision of which firm to hire. The district court correctly found that Yudi cannot recover under the KCPA. When alleging fraud, the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with particularity. Yudi failed to establish that she relied, either directly or indirectly, on any fraudulent representation by the Pistotniks. Complaints to the Kansas Disciplinary Administrator are not discoverable, and the district court did not err by refusing to require Brad or Brian to turn over such documents to Yudi. And settlement agreements which Yudi wanted to obtain in discovery were confidential, meaning the district court did not err by refusing to compel their discovery. The district court did not abuse its discretion by transferring venue to Sedgwick County, where the defendants were located and where all the legal work was completed.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-208(a), -209(b), -226, -2103(h); K.S.A. 50-623(b), -634(a), 60-609(a)

Cri in l

EVIDENCE—JOINDER—PRIOR CRIMES STATE V. BROWN SALINE DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED NO. 119,460—AUGUST 21, 2020

FACTS: In 2015 Brown was charged with three counts of rape and one count of aggravated indecent liberties for crimes involving his stepdaughter, K.N. While he was in custody,

Brown wrote both K.N. and A.N., the victim’s mother and his long-time companion. The contents of the letters caused the State to charge him with one count each of intimidation of a victim and a witness. Over Brown’s objections, the information was consolidated for one trial. After a jury trial, Brown was convicted of all charges except for intimidation of a victim. He appealed.

ISSUES: (1) Admission in evidence of prior acts of domestic violence; (2) consolidation of information for one trial; (3) denials of motions for mistrial

HELD: At trial, the district court admitted evidence that Brown significantly damaged property at the home during arguments with A.N. The evidence was ostensibly admitted to prove why K.N. would be fearful to disclose the sexual abuse, even though the evidence showed that K.N. did not witness these events. There was extensive testimony at trial about these domestic violence events. Although the priorcrimes evidence was relevant and material, its probative value was diminished given the lengthy timelines over which the abuse occurred and the undisputed fact that K.N. did not witness the behavior. And the State never asked K.N. at trial if her failure to report was due, at least in part, to Brown’s violent tendencies. The exhaustive testimony about Brown’s prior crimes, the diminished probative value of the evidence, and the fact that the State could have proven the same thing with less prejudicial evidence, results in the conclusion that the district court erred by admitting the evidence. This error cannot be considered harmless and the case must be remanded for a new trial. It is undisputed that the State established the legal requirements to consolidate all charges. The letters to A.N. and K.N. put Brown’s character into dispute that prejudiced him with the jury, all for little probative value. The district court erred by consolidating these cases for trial. There is no need to review errors in the district court’s rulings on Brown’s motions for mistrial. This case has already been reversed for two new trials.

STATUTE: K.S.A. 22-3202, -3303, 60-447(b), -455, -455(a), -455(b),

APPEALS—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—SENTENCING STATE V. DOMINGUEZ

SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—REVERSED AND REMANDED NO. 12,618—AUGUST 28, 2020

FACTS: Dominguez sentenced in August 2017 to prison term and granted probation for 24 months. In October 2017 district court found probation violation and imposed threeday quick dip jail sanction. A September 2018 warrant issued for six probation violations. At a July 10, 2019, hearing district court revoked probation, applying the July 1, 2019, amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme which removed the requirement for a 120-day or 180-day sanction before revocation could be ordered. Dominguez appealed, arguing for first time that district court should have applied either the law in effect at time of her 2018 probation violations or the law in effect when she committed her 2017 crimes of conviction.

ISSUE: (1) Revocation of probation—K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3716

HELD: Following the reasoning in State v. Coleman 311 Kan. 332 (2020), and finding unpublished Court of Appeals’ opinions on the same issue persuasive, court holds the 2019 amendment to the intermediate sanctioning scheme at K.S.A. 22-3716 does not apply retroactively to probation violators whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the amendment. State’s reliance on State v. Tearney, 57 Kan. App.2d 601 (2019), is misplaced. Reversed and remanded for new dispositional hearing. District court must impose either a 120-day or 180-day prison sanction before revoking Dominguez’ probation unless the court finds a valid statutory ground to circumvent further intermediate sanctions.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6810(e), 22-3716, -3716(c), -3716(c)(1)(C), -3716(c)(10); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(1)(A)-(D); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9)(B), -3716(c)(12); K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 22-3716(c); K.S.A. 22-3716

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—PROBATION— SENTENCING—STATUTES STATE V. DUNHAM

SALINE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, REMANDED NO. 121081—JULY 31, 2020

FACTS: While on probation for drug crime convictions in two cases, Dunham committed additional crimes leading to three more cases, the last two committed while Dunham was on felony release status. Addressing all five cases the same day, district court revoked probation in Cases 1 and 2 and imposed consecutive prison sentences in the additional three cases, finding Kansas law required that sentences in Cases 4 and 5 run consecutive to each other and consecutive to Case 3. Dunham appealed claiming district court erred by concluding it lacked discretion to impose the last three sentences concurrently. He also claimed the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation, arguing drug treatment would better address his addiction.

ISSUES: (1) Multiple sentences; (2) probation revocation

HELD: District court erred in finding it had no discretion to impose Dunham’s sentences in Cases 3, 4, and 5 consecutive to each other. Law related to concurrent and consecutive sentencing in felony cases is examined including the interpretation of statutory language, the statutes and case law related to concurrent and consecutive sentences, and the application of applicable statutes to facts of Dunham’s case. Dunham had multiple sentences imposed on different cases on the same day, so this case is controlled by State v. Edwards, 252 Kan. 860 (1993), which interpreted the previous version of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606(a) as allowing a court flexibility—regardless of sentence ordered in any individual case such as the consecutive prison term in Dunham’s Case 3 sentence—to run the sentences in multiple cases concurrently or consecutively as the court finds appropriate. District court’s order running the sentences consecutively is vacated and case is remanded for court to use its discretion in deciding whether the sentences in Cases 4 and 5 should be consecutive to or concurrent with each other and to Case 3.

District court did not act unreasonably by revoking Dunham’s probation. Facts support the district court’s conclusion that Dunham was no longer amenable to probation. STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6601, -6604(f) (4), -6606(a), -6606(c), -6606(d), -6606(e); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 22-3716(c)(8)(A); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6604(f)(4), -6606(d); K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 21-4603d, -4720(a); K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4608(1), -4608(3); K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21- 4608, -4608(2), -4608(4), -4608(5); K.S.A. 21-4608(a), -4608(c), 22- 2801, -2802, -2804

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— PROBATION—SENTENCING—STATUTES STATE V. LYON SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 120,993—JULY 24, 2020

FACTS: Lyon convicted on his pleas to charges of aggravated battery, criminal possession of a firearm, and endangerment of a person. Pursuant to the plea agreement, district court imposed dispositional departure sentence of probation with underlying prison term. District court’s calculation of criminal history included Lyon’s 2010 Kansas aggravated burglary conviction as a person felony. Probation violation warrant issued four months later, alleging in part that Lyon committed the felony offense of aggravated battery/domestic violence. Trial judge revoked probation, finding Lyon had committed misdemeanor domestic battery. On appeal, Lyon claimed the trial court’s revocation of probation denied Lyon due process because the State failed to allege he committed a domestic battery in the probation violation. He also claimed his 2010 Kansas conviction should have been classified as a nonperson felony because the elements of the 2010 version of aggravated burglary are broader than the elements of the 2017 version of the crime.

ISSUES: (1) Due process—revocation of probation; (2) sentencing—criminal history

HELD: District court did not err in revoking Lyon’s probation. The warrant’s allegation that Lyon committed aggravated battery/domestic violence sufficiently notified him of what the State intended to prove, and it is uncontested that substantial competent evidence supports the trial court’s finding of domestic battery.

The identical-or-narrower test in State v. Wetrich, 307 Kan. 552 (2018), which applies to out-of-state offenses and to Kansas offenses committed prior to the1993 implementation of the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA), does not apply to the scoring of Lyon’s post-KSGA Kansas conviction. A post-KSGA Kansas crime is properly scored as a person offense if the crime was classified as a person offense when it was committed and when the current crime of conviction was committed and when the current crime of conviction was committed even if the prior version of the earlier crime’s elements are broader than the elements of the current version. Lyon’s alternative constitutional argument under Apprendi is not properly before the court and is not considered. Whether recodification and/or statutory amendments to aggravated burglary amounted to a repeal for purposes of K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-6810(d)(8) is examined, finding no such determination is required in this case. Regardless of the statutory amendments to aggravated burglary, district court properly scored Lyon’s prior conviction for aggravated burglary as a person offense.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5109(b), -5111(i), -6801 et seq., -6804(c), -6804(p), -6809, -6810, -6811(e)(1); K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5414(a), 22-3716, -3716(b)(1), -3716(c)(8) (A), -3716(c)(9)(B); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5807(b), -5807(b) (1), 5807(e), -6810(d), -6810(d)(8), -6810(d)(9), -6811(e)(3); K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 21-3715(a), -5103(d), -5413, -5427(3), -6811(d)(1); K.S.A. 21-3412, -3701, -3715, -3716, -4843, 22- 3716

CRIMINAL LAW—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE— EVIDENCE—JURIES—PROSECUTORS STATE V. OLSMAN ELK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART NO. 120,119—SEPTEMBER 4, 2020

FACTS: Jury convicted Olsman of kidnapping and attempted rape. On appeal he claimed: (1) insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping conviction because confinement of the victim was incidental and inherent in the attempted rape; (2) district court erred in ruling the testimony of victim’s sister about victim’s reputation for dishonesty was inadmissible for lack of foundation; (3) district court erroneously instructed jury on kidnapping; (4) in closing argument and rebuttal prosecutor improperly commented on Olsman’s and victim’s credibility and inflamed passions of jury; (5) district court erred in denying Olsman’s motion for a new trial which argued in part that a deputy improperly referred to Olsman having been in jail on a previous occasion; and (6) cumulative error denied him a fair trial.

ISSUES: (1) Sufficiency of the evidence—kidnapping; (2) exclusion of testimony; (3) jury instruction—kidnapping; (4) prosecutorial error; (5) motion for new trial; (6) cumulative error

HELD: Olsman’s kidnapping conviction is reversed and kidnapping sentence is vacated. State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203 (1976), State v. Cheers, 231 Kan. 164 (1982), and State v. Richmond, 250 Kan. 375 (1992), are factually distinguished as involving takings or confinements that substantially facilitated the commission of other crimes. Unpublished Court of Appeals case, is found to be similar to Olsman’s case. Applying Buggs analysis, evidence in this case is insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction.

District court did not err in relying on State v. Penn, 41 Kan. App. 2d 251 (2009), for the foundational requirements for admitting reputation evidence. Olsman’s argument that Penn was wrongly decided is unpersuasive. Under circumstances in case, including lapse of five years between events that formed the basis for victim’s reputation and events leading to trial, district court’s determination was not an abuse of discretion. Even if district court may have incorrectly stated that victim and her sister were not of the same community, Olsman failed burden of establishing that they were. Olsman’s constitutional claim fails with no showing of error in district court’s evidentiary ruling.

Reversal of Olsman’s kidnapping conviction renders his jury instruction claim moot.

Prosecutor’s limited and isolated closing argument statements, in particular referring to Olsman as a “liar,” were improper but overall nature of prosecutor’s argument was premised in reasonable inferences fairly derivable from the evidence and directed jury to reach its own conclusions. Prosecutor’s rebuttal comments were an improper appeal to jury for sympathy toward the victim. In light of entire record, however, no reasonable probability these comments affected outcome of the trial.

Olsman fails to explain how district court’s admonishment to the deputy and its curative instruction to the jury was insufficient to cure any prejudicial effect of the deputy’s statement. No abuse of district court’s discretion is demonstrated.

With reversal of Olsman’s kidnapping conviction, only identified errors bearing on cumulative error analysis are prosecutor’s comments and deputy’s testimony. On overall strength of evidence the limited prejudice from these two harmless errors did not aggregate into reversible error.

CONCURRENCE and DISSENT (Warner, J.): Joins majority’s analysis of all claims but for its conclusion that Olsman’s confinement of victim within his home was insufficient to support the jury’s kidnapping verdict. Jury decided whether Olsman’s grabbing of victim’s arm and preventing her from leaving was an independently significant act, and sufficient evidence supported its assessment. Majority ventured into jury’s fact-finding role by reweighing the evidence supporting Olsman’s kidnapping conviction.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 22-3501(1), 60-455, -460(z); K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 21-5408(a)(2), -5503(a)(1)(A); K.S.A. 60-419, -420. -422(d), -446, -447(a), -460(z)

CRIMINAL LAW—INSURANCE— JURISDICTION—STATUTES STATE V. ROZELL

WYANDOTTE DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,094—AUGUST 7, 2020

FACTS: Rozell (Missouri resident) and Lopez (Wyandotte County, Kansas, resident) were in a car accident in Missouri. Rozell submitted bodily injury claim on Lopez’ State Farm insurance to a claims representative in Tennessee who discovered the Missouri hospital bill Lopez submitted had been altered to show a post-accident date. State charged Rozell in Wyandotte County with one count of making false information and one count of fraudulent insurance act, listing State Farm as the victim of Rozell’s crimes. District court granted Rozell’s motion to dismiss the charges for lack of jurisdiction. State appealed, arguing proximate result jurisdiction existed under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 21-5106(b)(3) for a person who attempts to defraud a Kansas insurance policy issued to a Kansas resident, and Wyandotte County was the proper venue.

ISSUE: (1) Proximate result jurisdiction

HELD: District court’s dismissal of the charges for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed. Kansas does not have proximate result jurisdiction to prosecute Rozell for making false information, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5824(a), or committing a fraudulent insurance act, K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 40-2,118(a),

appellate decisions just because he allegedly intended to defraud a Kansas insurance policy. The law related to proximate result jurisdiction is reviewed. When determining proximate result jurisdiction, Kansas courts may consider the negative consequences of a person’s out-of-state criminal acts within Kansas only if the statutory language of that person’s charged crime considered such negative consequences. Here, the State failed to analyze the elements of the charged crimes. Neither the making false information statute, nor the fraudulent insurance act statute consider the negative consequences of a person’s out-of-state criminal acts in the language of the statute.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-40-2,118(a), -5106, -5106(b), -5106(b)(3), -5824(a), -5830(a)(2); K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 40-2,118(a), -2,118(e), -5106(b),-5106(b)(3), -5824(a) ; K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-3734(a)(2)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—SENTENCING—STATUTES STATE V. VAUGHN SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED NO. 121,340—AUGUST 14, 2020

FACTS: Vaughn was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, a crime committed while he was on felony bond for a previous crime. District court imposed prison sentence to run consecutively to Vaughn’s previous sentence finding Special Rule 10 applied and required consecutive sentences, and finding Vaughn failed to show any manifest injustice. Vaughn appealed, arguing the district court had discretion to sentence him concurrently, thus applied the wrong legal standard. State’s response in part acknowledged error in sentencing journal entry’s citation of Special Rule 9 instead of Special Rule 10, to be remedied by a nunc pro tunc order.

ISSUE: (1) K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606(d)—consecutive prison sentence

HELD: The district court had no discretion to sentence Vaughn concurrently. If a district court sentencing a defendant for a new felony committed while on felony bond under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606(d) imposes a prison sanction, that sentence must be consecutive unless the defendant shows manifest injustice. Here, district court’s finding of no manifest injustice is not challenged, and Vaughn’s statutory arguments and appeal to legislative history are rejected. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-6606(d) and K.S.A. 21-6604(f)(4) are examined and interpreted, finding the two statutes are harmonious rather than conflicting.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5705(a)(l), -5705(d) (3)(C), -6604(f)(4), -6606, -6606(a), -6606(b), -6606(c), -6606(d), -6606(e), -6819(a); K.S.A. 21-4603d, -4608

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—EVIDENCE—JURIES—MOTIONS—SENTENCING STATE V. WILLIAMS SEDGWICK DISTRICT COURT—AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED NO. 120,768—JULY 10, 2020 FACTS: Jury convicted Williams of rape of 13-year old girl. During trial State introduced DNA results of one of multiple swabs taken from victim. Sentencing court imposed concurrent Hard-25 life sentences, but journal entry also stated

appellate decisions that Williams was subject to lifetime post-release supervision for each crime. Williams filed pre-sentence motion for postconviction DNA testing of all swabs. District court summarily denied both that motion and Williams’ post-sentencing motion for reconsideration, stating only that the motion was unripe and K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-2512(a) did not apply. Williams appealed claiming: (1) district court erred by allowing

State to exercise a peremptory strike in the midst of jury selection and prior to defense questioning of the jury panel; (2) verdict form which placed the line for finding the defendant “guilty” above “not guilty” infringed the presumption of innocence; (3) cumulative effect of these two errors denied him a fair trial; (4) journal entry of sentencing erroneously included lifetime post-release supervision; and (5) district court erred by summarily denying his motions for post-conviction

DNA testing.

ISSUES: (1) Peremptory challenge; (2) verdict form; (3) cumulative error; (4) sentencing; (5) post-conviction motion for

DNA testing

HELD: Timing of State’s peremptory challenge, though unusual, was not improper and did not violate Williams’ right to a fair trial. Each party voluntarily used one peremptory challenge before the State passed the jury for cause, and used their remaining peremptory challenges after Williams approved the jury. This did not violate Kansas case law or K.S.A. 22-3411a.

Wording of the verdict form did not violate Williams’ presumption of innocence. Kansas Supreme Court cases have rejected William’s position.

No errors shown for application of cumulative error doctrine.

Williams’ convictions are affirmed but case is remanded to district court for correction of error in the sentencing journal entry. A sentencing court cannot order lifetime post-release supervision when a person has been convicted of an off-grid crime. And the journal entry erroneously recorded the effective sentence announced from the bench.

Because district court did not rule on Williams’ motion until after pronouncing sentence, the motion was not “unripe.” District court’s summary denial of the request for post-conviction DNA testing is reversed. Case is remanded so district court can articulate its findings and conclusions under the procedure outlined by Kansas statutes and Kansas Supreme Court case law.

STATUTES: K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-2512, -2512(a), -2512(a) (1)-(3), -2512(c); K.S.A. 22-3411a

ReadytoElevate yourTechnology?

Law Firms have been rising above the competition with LightHouse’s SafeHarbor Technology solutions since 2003

ProActiveIT | VoIPPhoneSystems SecuritySolutions | Cloud Hosting

WWW.LHBIS.COM (913) 780-0494

Call ustodayto getstarted!