State v. Dunlap
266 P.3d 1242
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dunlap was found guilty by a jury of aggravated robbery and obstructing official duty; verdicts were read in open court but the trial judge did not inquire whether the verdict read was the jury's verdict, as required by K.S.A. 22-3421.
- The court did ask the parties whether they wanted the jury polled; Dunlap's counsel declined.
- Posttrial motions were denied; the PSI revealed 15 prior convictions, including a prior aggravated robbery, leading to a standard presumptive sentence of 216 months.
- Dunlap appealed, challenging only the procedure used to accept the verdict and claiming reversible error for noncompliance with K.S.A. 22-3421.
- The panel interpreted the statute as requiring two steps: (1) inquire into verdict accuracy; (2) poll the jury if requested; polling was offered but not requested, creating a waiver scenario.
- The court ultimately affirmed the convictions, holding any error harmless and not reversible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the failure to inquire into verdict accuracy was reversible error | Dunlap | State | Harmless error; not reversible |
| Whether Dunlap waived the error by declining jury polling | Dunlap | State | Waiver via decline; no reversal |
| Whether the error was harmless under Ward framework | Dunlap | State | Harmless; no substantial rights affected |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 1059 (2008) (polling not required unless requested; unanimity concerns insufficient as sole basis to reverse)
- State v. Gray, 45 Kan. App. 2d 522 (2011) (inquiry required even if polling waived; deliberate structural-error approach)
- State v. Holt, 285 Kan. 760 (2008) (right to unanimous verdict is statutory; failure to object may bar appellate review; not necessarily reversible for harmlessness)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional rights; risk framework for error analysis)
- Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 (2009) (structural error concepts; some errors subject to harmless-error analysis)
- Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (definition of structural error in federal constitutional context)
- State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (2010) (jury unanimity and finality with standard presumptions; relevance to harmless-error analysis)
- State v. Bell, 266 Kan. 896 (1999) (mandatory statutory provisions subject to harmless-error analysis)
- State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871 (1994) (mandatory provisions and prejudice requirements; harmless error if no prejudice)