State v. Bennington
264 P.3d 440
| Kan. | 2011Background
- V.B., a 77-year-old woman, was attacked and robbed in fall 2003; DNA linked Bennington to the crime.
- V.B. died before trial, but statements to bank, a SANE, and a form completed for a bank were in evidence.
- Bennington moved to exclude statements under Crawford confrontation rights; trial court denied.
- Jury convicted Bennington on aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, rape, two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, and two misdemeanor financial-card uses.
- Court of Appeals held bank statement non-testimonial and SANE evidence may be harmless; trial court admission of SANE statements contested.
- Kansas Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded; upheld most convictions, but reversed two aggravated criminal sodomy counts and vacated sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testimonial nature of V.B.'s statements | State contends bank and SANE statements are non-testimonial and admissible. | Bennington argues statements violate Confrontation Clause because they are testimonial and uncrossed. | SANE statements testimonial; reversal on two sodomy counts; others harmless. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct and in limine | State argues no improper misconduct; in limine limits complied with. | Bennington argues prosecutorial errors affected trial. | No reversible misconduct; issues preserved or not dispositive. |
| Use of prior convictions for sentencing (Apprendi issue) | State maintains Apprendi allows sentencing enhancements with prior convictions. | Bennington argues enhancement illegitimate unless proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. | Ivory framework reaffirmed; sentencing enhancement constitutional. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2004) (testimonial vs. non-testimonial statements; confrontation implications)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (ongoing emergency vs. past events distinction in statements)
- Hammon v. Indiana, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2006) (questioning after emergency; testimonial vs. non)
- Brown v. Kentucky, 285 Kan. 261 (2007) (confrontation principles guidance in state context)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 260 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009) (forensic affidavits as testimonial; business-record exception limits)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (blood-alcohol report as testimonial; cross-examination required)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (primary-purpose test; ongoing emergency and context matters)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (testimonial statements exclude; context matters)
- State v. Henderson, 284 Kan. 267 (2007) (child victim interviews and officer participation; testimonial inquiries)
- State v. Miller, Kan. , 264 P.3d 461 (2011) (stage-by-stage analysis of SANE testimony in pediatrics context)
- State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (prior-conviction sentencing enhancements constitutional)