State v. Bogguess, 268 P.3d 481

Bogguess was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated assault, and criminal possession of a firearm after a bench trial on stipulated facts.
He sought to preserve appellate rights and reserved issues related to his statements and their suppression.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress and conducted a Jackson v. Denno hearing to determine voluntariness of the confession.
During the suppression hearing, Bogguess testified about drug use, police conduct, and his attempts to speak with counsel and a psychiatrist; questions about the substance of the statements were challenged as outside the hearing’s scope.
The trial court struck Bogguess’s testimony after Fifth Amendment issues but later conducted a de novo voluntariness review based on the remaining evidence.
On appeal, the court addressed preservation of issues, the admissibility of statements, and several sentencing and counsel-related challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reservation of appellate rights	Bogguess reserved appeal rights via stipulation and statements.	Stipulation failed to expressly preserve Denno/ suppression rulings.	Review allowed despite lack of explicit stipulation language.
Scope of Jackson v. Denno hearing	Defendant could testify about events related to voluntariness.	Cross-examination on substantive guilt issues is improper.	Defendant may testify for limited voluntariness purpose; questions on the substance of the crime are outside scope.
Admissibility of confession after Denno	Records support voluntariness; trial court correctly admitted statements.	Substance and coercion issues require exclusion or further testing.	Confession admissible; trial court’s voluntariness determination is supported by substantial evidence.
Testimony barred by Fifth Amendment	Defendant waived privilege by testifying on direct examination.	Fifth Amendment protections should apply; waiver occurred only if testimony relates to guilt.	Trial court erred in requiring all questions; but voluntariness analysis stands.
Sentencing and jury findings	Presumptive sentences within the grid are constitutional; Apprendi concerns preserved for federal review.	Prior convictions and sentencing factors require jury findings beyond reasonable doubt.	Sentence within grid is constitutional; no Apprendi error; jurisdictional limits apply to related case.

State v. Downey, 27 Kan. App. 2d 350 (2000) (preservation of appellate rights in stipulations discussed)
State v. Mansaw, 32 Kan. App. 2d 1011 (2005) (review of suppression despite lack of contemporaneous objection)
State v. Bastian, 37 Kan. App. 2d 156 (2007) (contemporaneous objection rule relaxed in bench trial context)
State v. Parson, 226 Kan. 491 (1979) (older rule permitting relaxed contemporaneous objection in certain contexts)
State v. Miles, 233 Kan. 286 (1983) (defendant entitled to hearing outside jury for voluntariness)
Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (due process focus on voluntariness of confession; cross-examination scope limited)