State v. Ahrens
290 P.3d 629
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Ahrens was charged under K.S.A. 2008 Supp. 8-1567(a)(3) alleging he operated or attempted to operate a vehicle while under the influence to the degree rendering him unable to safely drive.
- Deputy Roths stopped Ahrens after observing a defective taillight and later noted odor of alcohol, glassy eyes, and slurred speech; Ahrens admitted drinking and failed sobriety tests.
- The jury was instructed that Ahrens could be found guilty under operating or attempting to operate while under the influence, and the verdict stated he was guilty of DUI.
- The Court of Appeals held that operating and attempting to operate were alternative means and that the State showed evidence for both.
- This Court applied a Brown framework to determine legislative intent and concluded no legislative intent to create alternative means; the conviction was affirmed on the operating ground, with reversal of the alternative-means holding.
- The case thus clarifies that operating or attempting to operate does not create separate alternative means under the statute, and the drive element can be proven by either action while the influence element is proven by the statutory circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether operating and attempting to operate are alternative means of DUI | Ahrens | Ahrens | Not alternative means; conviction affirmed on operation evidence |
| Whether jury unanimity was violated by charging alternative means | Ahrens | Ahrens | No unanimity issue; Brown framework governs |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (established the alternative means rule and super-sufficiency requirement)
- State v. Stevens, 285 Kan. 307 (2007) (held DUI in 8-1567(a) provides alternative means (operate or attempt to operate))
- State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (reinforced unanimous jury verdict protection; enforcement of Timley rule)
- State v. Fish, 228 Kan. 204 (1980) (interpreted operate vs drive; suggested broad operation could be drove; influenced Kendall)
- State v. Kendall, 274 Kan. 1003 (2002) (introduced concept of alternative theories; movement not required; relied on Kendall for Stevens' framing)
- Brown v. State, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (framework for identifying legislative intent and disjunctive 'or' in statute; governs alternative means analysis)