State v. Brosseit, 423 P.3d 1036

On June 23, 2014, Officer Early stopped Victor Brosseit for lane maintenance issues, observed signs of intoxication, and arrested him after Brosseit refused a preliminary breath test; an EMS paramedic (Scott Harris) drew Brosseit’s blood and the KBI test showed a BAC of .103 ± .007.
The State charged Brosseit with multiple DUI-related counts (including per se .08-based theories), driving on a revoked license, open container, and refusal of preliminary breath test; initial complaints did not identify Harris as a witness.
At trial the State endorsed Harris immediately before calling him; Brosseit objected and the district court allowed the late endorsement; Harris testified about drawing and securing the blood sample.
The jury convicted Brosseit on both DUI theories and related charges; he appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review only on whether the late endorsement of Harris complied with K.S.A. 22-3201(g).
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: it held that under long-standing Kansas precedent the statute is ambiguous and gives trial courts broad discretion to allow late endorsement unless the defendant shows actual prejudice (including denial of a requested continuance).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether K.S.A. 22-3201(g) prohibits endorsing a witness known at filing after the complaint is filed	Brosseit: statute unambiguously requires endorsement of all known witnesses at filing; postfiling endorsement allowed only for witnesses not known at filing	State: longstanding caselaw permits late endorsement in the court’s discretion so long as defendant is not prejudiced	Court: statute ambiguous; stare decisis and legislative acquiescence support prior rule—trial court has broad discretion to allow late endorsements; defendant must object and request a continuance to preserve reversible error
Preservation	Brosseit: objected below and preserved issue	State: argued Brosseit failed to preserve statutory argument in district court	Court: declined to consider State’s preservation contention because State did not cross-petition for review; reached merits

State v. Donaldson, 279 Kan. 694 (2005) (statute gives district court broad discretion to allow late endorsement absent actual prejudice)
State v. Snow, 282 Kan. 323 (2006) (review of late endorsement for abuse of discretion; prejudice standard)
State v. Shelby, 277 Kan. 668 (2004) (surprise and climactic testimony demonstrate prejudice)
The State v. Price, 55 Kan. 606 (1895) (earliest affirmations of discretion to permit postfiling endorsements)
The State v. Dickson, 6 Kan. 209 (1870) (found no statutory bar to testimony by witnesses not indorsed before trial)