State v. Kelly, 285 P.3d 1026

Kelly appealed convictions for possession of cocaine and marijuana after pretrial suppression motion denial and a bench trial on stipulated facts before a different judge.
Laboratory report and detective affidavit were admitted at trial; no other evidence was introduced.
The bench trial occurred about five weeks after the suppression ruling, with the same defense counsel but a different trial judge.
Court of Appeals affirmed; Kelly argued preservation requirements under K.S.A. 60-404 were not satisfied because there was no trial objection to the admitted stipulations.
This Court granted review to determine whether the Bogguess rationale applies when a bench trial is conducted by a different judge and whether pretrial suppression objections can be preserved without trial objections.
Majority holds that a pretrial suppression objection remains timely under K.S.A. 60-404 despite the lack of a trial objection, even with a different judge presiding the bench trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can pretrial suppression objections be preserved when a bench trial is held before a different judge?	Kelly	Kelly	Yes; pretrial objection preserved despite different bench-trial judge.
Does stipulation to admitted evidence foreclose the need for a trial objection to preserve the suppression issue?	Kelly	Kelly	Yes; stipulation does not bar preservation; objection at trial not required to preserve appeal.
Does Bogguess extend to scenarios with multiple judges handling pretrial ruling and trial?	State	Kelly	Yes; Bogguess rationale applies even with multiple judges.
What is the interplay between K.S.A. 60-404 and K.S.A. 22-3216(2)-(3) in suppression rulings?	State	Kelly	Pretrial ruling must be preserved by trial objection or equivalent under 60-404; neither 22-3216(2) nor 3 changes preservation requirement.

State v. Bogguess, 293 Kan. 743 (2012) (bench trial on stipulated facts preserves suppression issue under 60-404)
State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (reason to require trial objection to preserve from pretrial ruling)
State v. King, 288 Kan. 333 (2009) (contemporaneous-objection rule and preservation purposes)
State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207 (1989) (necessity of developing materiality at trial for suppression issues)
State v. Downey, 27 Kan. App. 2d 350 (2000) (reaffirmation of preservation under 60-404 when trial evidence unfolds)
State v. Synoracki, 253 Kan. 59 (1993) (stipulation and preservation of suppression issues where no contemporaneous objection)
State v. Jones, 267 Kan. 627 (1999) (contemporaneous objection requirements in trial context)