467 P.3d 477
Kan.2020Background
- John Christopher Harrison was tried on felony and misdemeanor charges after a traffic stop and encounter with police; the jury asked during deliberations for definitions of "battery" and "bodily harm."
- The district court conferred with Harrison, his counsel, and the State and agreed on a written response: "The instructions you have been provided [are] the law you must apply in this case. No further instructions will be provided."
- The court put that response in writing and had court staff deliver it to the jury room; Harrison later said he wanted to be present when the answer was read but the court said the note had already been sent.
- The jury convicted Harrison on multiple counts. A Court of Appeals panel assumed a constitutional violation from the note-passing but found it harmless and affirmed the convictions.
- The Kansas Supreme Court limited review to whether Harrison’s presence was required when the written response was delivered; it held the 2014 statutory amendment permitting responses "in open court or in writing" authorized the practice and that no statutory or constitutional error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Harrison's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant must be present when court responds to a jury question by written note delivered to jury room | Pre-2014 law and K.S.A. 22-3405(a) require presence; his presence is necessary for fairness | 2014 amendment to K.S.A. 22-3420(d) permits responses "in open court or in writing," so presence required only if response is given in open court | Presence not required when written response is delivered to jury room after counsel and defendant consulted |
| Whether the note delivery constituted a "stage of the trial" requiring presence under K.S.A. 22-3405(a) | Note-passing is a trial stage and thus triggers statutory presence requirement | Delivery by staff was not a stage requiring presence because defendant’s presence was not essential to fairness | Not a stage requiring presence here; defendant’s presence was not essential |
| Whether delivering a written response without defendant present violated Sixth Amendment Confrontation or Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights | Absence infringed constitutional right to be present at critical stages; presence could affect jury reaction and fairness | Federal and persuasive authority allow written responses delivered without defendant present when consultation occurred beforehand; no critical-stage violation | No constitutional violation; defendant’s presence was not reasonably substantial to his opportunity to defend |
| If error occurred, whether it was harmless | Error prejudiced outcome and requires reversal | Any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Supreme Court found no error, so harmlessness analysis unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Killings, 301 Kan. 214 (2015) (defines when a "stage of the trial" requires defendant's presence)
- State v. McDaniel, 306 Kan. 595 (2017) (presence right extends to stages critical to outcome where defendant's presence contributes to fairness)
- State v. Coyote, 268 Kan. 726 (2000) (problematic precedent where defendant absent during counsel/court discussion about jury inquiry)
- State v. King, 297 Kan. 955 (2013) (addressed defendant presence concerning written jury inquiries)
- State v. Verser, 299 Kan. 776 (2014) (discussed presence issues tied to jury question responses)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (due process requires presence when it has a reasonably substantial relation to opportunity to defend)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (right to be present tied to Confrontation Clause)
- Esnault v. People of State of Colo., 980 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. 1992) (upheld written responses delivered without defendant present when consultation occurred)