State v. Hurd, 298 Kan. 555

Eric Hurd, a registered sex offender, was charged in two separate complaints: (1) assault, battery, and criminal threat arising from an incident at his father Frank Hurd’s home; and (2) two counts of failure to register as a sex offender after returning to Seward County.
The district court granted the State’s motion to consolidate the two matters for a single jury trial over Hurd’s objection; the court cited temporal proximity, overlapping witnesses, and court calendar considerations.
Hurd proceeded largely pro se after multiple appointed attorneys withdrew, filed motions to prevent consolidation, to recuse the judge, and to disqualify the prosecutor; the court denied recusal and did not hold a hearing on disqualification.
At trial, the jury convicted Hurd of criminal threat, battery, assault (lesser-included), and both failure-to-register counts; the court sentenced him to a controlling prison term.
Hurd moved for arrest of judgment, arguing the failure-to-register complaint was jurisdictionally defective; the district court denied relief. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Kansas Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hurd)	Held
1. Joinder/consolidation of separate complaints	Joinder was proper because cases were connected and witnesses overlapped; consolidation was efficient	Joinder was improper under K.S.A. 22-3202(1); consolidation prejudiced Hurd	Reversed: consolidation was not authorized by statute and was prejudicial; remand for separate trials
2. Prejudice from improper joinder	Any error was harmless; defendant failed to show prejudice	Joinder allowed jury to hear priors underlying registration counts, likely influencing verdict on violent-charges where eyewitness was inconsistent	State failed to prove harmlessness; reasonable probability of prejudice shown
3. Sufficiency of evidence for criminal threat (intent toward Jonathan)	Evidence (Frank’s testimony and responses) supported inference Hurd intended to terrorize Jonathan	Hurd argued State did not prove intent to terrorize Jonathan (not just Frank)	Affirmed: evidence was sufficient to support conviction for criminal threat
4. Jurisdictional sufficiency of failure-to-register complaint	Complaint adequately charged alternative theories; no jurisdictional defect	Complaint misplead statutory element (used "change of address" language instead of "coming into any county"), rendering charge jurisdictionally defective	Reversed conviction on those counts as void for defective charging document; but State may refile

State v. Gaither, 283 Kan. 671 (standards for joinder analysis)
State v. Donaldson, 279 Kan. 694 (interpretation of "connected together" for joinder)
State v. Anthony, 257 Kan. 1003 (when evidence of one crime arises during commission of another)
State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (party benefiting from nonconstitutional error must show no reasonable probability the error affected outcome)
State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54 (standard for reviewing complaint sufficiency / motion for arrest of judgment)
State v. Frye, 294 Kan. 364 (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)
State v. Becker, 290 Kan. 842 (intent may be proved circumstantially)
State v. Sawyer, 297 Kan. 902 (standards for recusal and review of affidavit under K.S.A. 20-311d)
State v. Sanford, 250 Kan. 592 (void convictions from jurisdictional defect and right to recharge)
State v. Dimaplas, 267 Kan. 65 (trial court authority to disqualify counsel for professional-conduct violations)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (adverse rulings alone do not establish judicial bias)