State v. Dinh Loc Ta
290 P.3d 652
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Ta was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child after touching two 2- and 3-year-old girls outside a Wichita theater.
- Evidence showed Ta touched the children’s faces, hair, arms, and legs; mothers described actions they deemed suspicious or inappropriate.
- Ta admitted some touching occurred and testified the contact was incidental to cleaning dirt and to comfort the children; he claimed no intent to commit a lewd act.
- Police questioning revealed Ta stated urges to have sex with children, which prosecutors used to support intent, including later statements played to the jury.
- The trial court denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a departure sentence; Ta timely appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the lewd touching element and the governing standard.
- On appeal, the court held the State failed to prove a lewd fondling or touching, reversing the convictions on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of lewd touching evidence | Ta | Ta | Insufficient evidence; convictions reversed |
| Judgment of acquittal standard and element separation | Ta | State | Trial court erred by collapsing acts and intent; required evaluation of actus reus separate from mens rea |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wells, 223 Kan. 94 (Kan. 1977) (definition of lewd touching; moralistic standard)
- State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952 (Kan. 2010) (act not lewd where not clearly offensive to moral senses)
- State v. Ramos, 240 Kan. 485 (Kan. 1987) (lewd touchings assessed by act undermining morals)
- State v. Naputi, 293 Kan. 55 (Kan. 2011) (avoid collapsing lewd act with intent element)
- State v. Rutherford, 39 Kan. App. 2d 767 (Kan. App. 2008) (totality of circumstances in lewd touching analysis)
- State v. Stout, 34 Kan. App. 2d 83 (Kan. App. 2005) (totality of circumstances in lewd touching)
- State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (Kan. 2012) (requirement of actus reus and mens rea for crime)
- State v. Conley, 216 Kan. 66 (Kan. 1975) (statutory change to add 'lewd' to illegality)
- United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115 (U.S. 1980) (intent and action both required for offense)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency standard: rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)