State v. Gilliland
276 P.3d 165
| Kan. | 2012Background
- Gilliland was convicted by jury of aggravated criminal sodomy with a child under 14; offense qualifies as an off-grid person felony under K.S.A. 21-3506.
- On direct appeal, Gilliland challenges suppression rulings, rape shield ruling, taint hearing, and Allen-type instruction, and argues cumulative error.
- The court later vacates Gilliland's life-sentence under Jessica's Law due to an ambiguity in sentencing and remands for resentencing.
- Facts show incident on June 9, 2007 at Gilliland's home involving his girlfriend Charlotte and her 12-year-old daughter C.E.; Gilliland allegedly engaged in oral sex with C.E.
- Gilliland testified he was unconscious due to seizures and intoxication; expert Dr. Logan offered theories of seizure or blackout but memory uncertain.
- Pretrial motions sought suppression of statements to Fontanez, jailhouse calls, and evidence under rape shield; some were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Miranda statement suppression preservation | Gilliland argues pre-Miranda custody invalidates statement. | State contends no preserved objection on pre-Miranda issue. | Issue not preserved; disregard. |
| Post-Miranda statements voluntariness | Gilliland alleges intoxication renders waiver involuntary. | State contends totality of circumstances supports voluntariness. | Voluntariness supported; statements admissible. |
| Suppression of jailhouse recordings | Gilliland claims Fourth Amendment privacy and statutes prohibit interception. | State argues consent implied by jail warnings and possession/control of facilities. | Recordings admissible; reasonable notice and consent found. |
| Rape shield exclusion of prior sexual conduct | Prior sexual conduct by victim is relevant to Gilliland's intent/defense. | Rape shield statute bars such evidence absent relevance. | Exclusion deemed harmless error; admissibility would not change outcome. |
| Pretrial taint hearing and expert testimony | Demanded separate taint hearing and expert on taint to C.E.'s statements. | Competency and interview evidence suffice; taint hearing unnecessary. | No separate taint hearing required; due process not violated. |
| Allen-type jury instruction | Instruction was improper in light of post-Salts standard. | Instruction was permissible under case law. | Instruction erroneous but harmless. |
| Departure sentence | Court departed improperly from Jessica's Law sentence without proper steps. | Ambiguity requires remand; some guidance acceptable. | Illegal sentence vacated; remanded for resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sharp, 289 Kan. 72 (2009) (totality of circumstances governs voluntariness of a confession)
- State v. McMullen, 290 Kan. 1 (2009) (factors for voluntariness; deference to trial court findings)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless error framework; 60-2105/60-261 controls)
- State v. Jolly, 291 Kan. 842 (2011) (departure-from-j Jessica's Law jurisprudence; remand procedure)
- State v. Andrews, 39 Kan. App. 2d 19 (2008) (consent to jailhouse recording under wiretap analogies; Andrews adopted largely)