State v. Brown
298 Kan. 1040
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Victim (J.D.), age 11, alleged Brown sexually assaulted and raped her in May 2010; physical exam showed vaginal injuries and a pediatric examiner reported saliva and blood on underclothes; KBI testing matched Brown’s DNA to samples taken from him after the incident.
- Brown was charged with off-grid rape (K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2)) and aggravated indecent liberties with a child (K.S.A. 21-3504(a)(3)(A)); both offenses carry off-grid sentencing enhancements if defendant was 18 or older.
- At trial, jury convicted Brown on both counts. The elements instructions did not list defendant’s age, but the verdict form included special questions on whether Brown was 18 or older; the jury answered yes.
- Brown received two consecutive hard-25 life sentences. The written judgment additionally imposed lifetime electronic monitoring and lifetime postrelease supervision.
- On appeal Brown challenged (inter alia) the use of special questions for age, prosecutorial misconduct in closing, sufficiency of evidence, jury polling procedure, cumulative error, and sentencing (electronic monitoring and postrelease supervision).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to include age as an element in jury instructions / use of special questions | Brown: age is an essential element of off-grid crimes and must be included in the elements instructions; special questions improperly separate guilt and the age element | State: age was submitted to jury via special questions on verdict form (per pattern notes); jury nevertheless found Brown 18+ | Court: Error to omit age from elements instructions and to use special questions (Osburn prohibits special questions), but the jury did find Brown 18+ and the record supports that finding; error was harmless; convictions affirmed |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during closing (misstating testimony and inflammatory remarks) | Brown: prosecutor misstated the nurse’s testimony, argued facts not in evidence, and made prejudicial remarks about sexual desire and treatment of his wife | State: some comments were permissible reasonable inferences; misstatement inadvertent and did not affect outcome | Court: Prosecutor misstated nurse’s testimony (misconduct) but misconduct was not reversible given strong corroborating physical and DNA evidence and permissible inferential argument; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (age and rape) | Brown: State failed to prove he was 18+ and the physical act of rape (truck-seat geometry/credibility) | State: testimony, physical injuries, and DNA supported guilt and age inference from Brown’s own testimony (residency, employment) | Court: Evidence sufficient; Brown’s own testimony permitted inference he was over 18; physical injury and DNA corroborate rape conviction |
| Sentencing: lifetime electronic monitoring and journal entry stating lifetime postrelease supervision | Brown: district court lacked authority to impose lifetime electronic monitoring; journal entry incorrectly states lifetime postrelease supervision vs. lifetime parole announced from bench | State: concedes errors | Court: District court erred to impose lifetime electronic monitoring (parole board function) and the journal entry misstated the orally pronounced sentence; those portions of sentence vacated and remanded for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (sentencing factor that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum is an element requiring jury determination)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Apprendi line — fact increasing punishment must be found by jury)
- State v. Bello, 289 Kan. 191 (Kan. 2009) (age is an essential element for off-grid Jessica’s Law offenses and must be jury-determined)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (Kan. 2010) (failure to instruct on age may be harmless where record incontrovertibly establishes defendant was over 18)
- State v. Osburn, 211 Kan. 248 (Kan. 1973) (special questions/verdicts prohibited in criminal jury trials)
- State v. Hyche, 293 Kan. 602 (Kan. 2012) (parole conditions, including electronic monitoring, are parole board authority, not district court)