State v. Dunn
304 Kan. 773
| Kan. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jerold Michael Dunn was convicted after a bench trial of forgery (passing a check) and stalking (encounter at a bank); he appealed only those two convictions.
- Count 8 (forgery) alleged Dunn "issue[d] or deliver[ed] a check ... which he/she knew had been made, altered or endorsed so that it appeared to have been made" but did not explicitly allege intent to defraud or other statutory elements.
- Dunn raised, for the first time on appeal, that Count 8 omitted essential elements of forgery and therefore the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying in part on another count in the charging papers; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review to reassess Kansas law on charging-document sufficiency.
- The Supreme Court examined the history of Kansas precedent (including Minor and Hall), federal law (notably United States v. Cotton), statutes governing pleading and remedies (K.S.A. 22-3201, 22-3208, 22-3502), and constitutional notice/due-process principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dunn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a criminal charging document must allege every statutory element to confer subject-matter jurisdiction | Hall and post-Hall precedent should be preserved; charging documents that omit elements may be cured or deemed sufficient under preservation and harmlessness doctrines | A charging document that omits an element (e.g., intent to defraud) is fatally defective and, because subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, can be raised at any time | Overruled Minor’s "jurisdictional instrument" rule: charging documents do NOT confer subject-matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction derives from the Kansas Constitution/statute; charging papers must allege facts that, if proved, constitute a Kansas crime, but need not recite every statutory element verbatim. |
| Standard for assessing charging-document sufficiency (elements vs. facts) | Charging documents drawn in statutory language are sufficient; courts may apply a forgiving approach when omission does not prejudice the defendant | Charging documents must allege all essential elements; omission is jurisdictional error | Adopted a facts-focused test: sufficiency turns on whether the pleading alleges factual allegations that, if proved beyond a reasonable doubt, would constitute the statutory crime. De novo review applies. |
| Remedy and preservation for defective charging documents (timing and relief) | Defects must be raised early (Hall favored district-court raising); if raised first on appeal, review should be limited | Jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and may be raised at any time; Hall’s bifurcated standard is illogical | Because charging-document defects are not jurisdictional, ordinary preservation rules apply. Statutes provide pretrial remedies (motion to quash, bill of particulars, amendment) and posttrial motions (arrest of judgment); unpreserved claims may be subject to harmless-error review; relief depends on defect type, timing, and prejudice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for stalking conviction | N/A (prosecution argued evidence established fear and placed victim in fear) | Dunn argued evidence failed to show Shaw’s particularized or reasonable fear | Evidence (bank teller testimony, victim’s fear, blocking of car, demeanor) was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the State; stalking conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728 (1990) (adopted a preservation-sensitive, bifurcated approach to charging-document defects; treated some omissions as jurisdictional if raised early)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (federal indictment omissions are not necessarily jurisdictional; apply plain-error/harmless-review when claim is forfeited)
- State v. Minor, 197 Kan. 296 (1966) (treated the information as the jurisdictional instrument and required that all statutory elements be alleged)
- State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666 (2010) (post-Hall decision applying harmlessness/forgiveness when an element—defendant’s age under Jessica’s Law—was omitted but evidence was overwhelming)
- State v. Portillo, 294 Kan. 242 (2012) (expressed skepticism about Hall’s distinction and retroactive validation of defective charging documents)