State v. Brooks
298 Kan. 672
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Brooks was convicted of rape, two counts of blackmail, and breach of privacy; Court of Appeals reversed rape and breach due to insufficient evidence; Kansas Supreme Court granted review on force or fear as the means of rape and whether force or fear are alternative means; trial evidence involved Brooks threatening to disclose J.P.'s affair to coerce sex; Brooks came to J.P.'s house, directed her to undress, and had nonconsensual intercourse under fear of public exposure; the majority held force or fear is not alternative means but a single means described by the statute; dissenters disagree on sufficiency of fear evidence; the case centers on statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 2005 Supp. 21-3502(a)(1)(A) and the proper application of the super-sufficiency standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does force or fear create alternative means for rape under 21-3502(a)(1)(A)? | State argues force or fear is a single means | Brooks contends force or fear creates alternative means | Force or fear does not create alternative means; it is a single means within the statute |
| Was there sufficient evidence J.P. was overcome by fear to sustain the rape conviction? | State contends fear was shown by threats to reveal the affair | Brooks contends fear was not demonstrated to overcome by fear | Sufficient evidence supported that J.P. was overcome by fear and Submit to intercourse; rape conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (framework for distinguishing alternative means vs. options within a means)
- State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (alternative means rule; precedent on unanimity and multiple means)
- State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (reaffirmed Timley but treated force or fear as single means in applying to facts)
- State v. Bunyard, 281 Kan. 392 (2006) (rape may be proven by fear contemporaneous with penetration; evidence need not be initial)
- State v. Borthwick, 255 Kan. 899 (1994) (fear is inherently subjective; cannot rigidly define fear; appellant’s reliance on cantrell Cantrell discussed)
- State v. Cantrell, 234 Kan. 426 (1983) (circumstantial evidence can prove fear’s effect when victim resisted)
- Urban v. City of Overland Park, 269 Kan. 10 (2000) (statutory interpretation approach favors plain language)
- State v. Nunez, 298 Kan. 661 (2014) (force or fear as descriptive of elements, not separate means)