State v. Foster
264 P.3d 116
Kan. Ct. App.2011Background
- Foster attempted to cash a $900 check from Affordable Paintball at CheckSmart; the check was stolen and the company couldn't verify it.
- A $350 check drawn on Affordable Paintball payable to Foster was later presented; police were called when it was discovered.
- Ridens testified immunity for forgery offenses and described how Ferguson created both checks; Ridens aided Foster in driving to CheckSmart.
- Foster claimed the $900 check was repayment from Ridens and that the $350 check was for Ridens’ debt; Ridens testified Foster knew the checks were stolen.
- Police found marijuana on Foster during a search incident to arrest; Usrey testified Foster had no relation to Affordable Paintball.
- The district court admitted testimony and instructed the jury on credibility, and Foster argued he was denied an accomplice instruction and that his prior history could not enhance his sentence without a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issuing and delivering are alternative forgery means | Foster | State | Not alternate means; statutory scheme construed as three acts not interchangeable. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove delivering a fraudulent check | Foster | State | Sufficient evidence supports delivery with knowledge of fraud. |
| Whether the accomplice instruction was required | Foster | State | No clear error; Ridens was an accomplice, but instruction not required to avoid verdict impact. |
| Whether use of prior criminal history for sentencing violates Apprendi | Foster | State | Ivory governs; no due process violation; criminal history can enhance if proven as provided by law. |
| Appropriate handling of alternative means doctrine in forgery statute (contextual interpretation) | Foster | State | Court adopts UCC-based, holistic statutory interpretation; not alternative means. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wright, 290 Kan. 194 (2010) (unanimity concerns with alternative means and sufficiency)
- State v. Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (unanimity and alternative means in multifaceted offenses)
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory interpretation of forgery elements)
- State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793 (2009) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Simmons, 282 Kan. 728 (2006) (accomplice definition and caution in evaluating accomplice testimony)
- State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44 (2002) (Apprendi-type sentencing enhancement validity)