State v. Jordan
303 Kan. 1017
| Kan. | 2016Background
- In April 2010 Michael Jordan took a Mercedes for a test drive from Joshua Smith and did not return it; Smith reported the car stolen.
- Nine days later Jordan was stopped driving the Mercedes; he fled but was arrested; police found the car bore a license plate reported stolen days earlier.
- The State prosecuted Jordan in two separate cases: Case 1 was for traffic offenses (bench trial on stipulated facts, using a police report) that resulted in convictions on three offenses; Case 2 charged theft by deception (for the Mercedes) and intentionally obtaining control of a stolen license plate.
- Jordan moved to dismiss Case 2 under K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a) (compulsory joinder), arguing evidence admitted in Case 1 about the Mercedes barred the second prosecution; the district court denied the motion and convicted him of theft by deception after a bench trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on State v. Wilkins, which requires that evidence admitted in the earlier trial be sufficient to support conviction of the later-charged crime to trigger compulsory joinder.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Wilkins should be overruled and whether the police report/stipulation in Case 1 admitted sufficient evidence to bar prosecution in Case 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilkins (requiring sufficiency in prior trial to trigger compulsory joinder) should be overruled | State: Wilkins remains good law; compulsory joinder requires more than a mere reference to evidence and Wilkins aligns with statutory purpose | Jordan: Wilkins improperly reads a sufficiency requirement into the statute; statute says only that evidence was admitted, not that it be sufficient to convict | Court: Declined to overrule Wilkins; stare decisis and legislative inaction weigh against overruling |
| Whether evidence admitted in the traffic bench trial satisfied the second Berkowitz prong (i.e., evidence of the later crime was admitted and sufficient) | State: Evidence admitted at Case 1 (police report) did not establish all elements of theft by deception | Jordan: The police report/stipulation admitted evidence of the Mercedes’ ownership and related facts sufficient to trigger joinder under Wilkins | Court: The admitted evidence was insufficient to prove elements of theft by deception (no evidence of deception, intent, value, or time/place); compulsory joinder did not bar prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wilkins, 269 Kan. 256, 7 P.3d 252 (2000) (adopted a sufficiency-of-the-evidence requirement to trigger K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a))
- In re Berkowitz, 3 Kan. App. 2d 726, 602 P.2d 99 (1979) (articulated three-prong test for compulsory joinder)
- State v. Mahlandt, 231 Kan. 665, 647 P.2d 1307 (1982) (explained the objective of compulsory joinder is to prevent proving uncharged crimes and effectively retrying the defendant)
- State v. Barnhart, 266 Kan. 541, 972 P.2d 1106 (1999) (discussed prosecution choices re: consolidation or separate trials and admissibility implications)