State v. Kendall, 331 P.3d 763

Kendall, an inmate, is charged in Reno County with stalking and violating a protective order issued in 2010.
The protective order prohibited Kendall from contacting D.K. and required no indirect communication.
Kendall placed multiple calls to D.K.’s cell phone from El Dorado prison; D.K. received calls and feared for her safety.
The Court of Appeals reversed Kendall’s stalking conviction as insufficient for an “act of communication” but upheld the protective-order conviction.
The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the interpretation of “act of communication” and related venue issues, and affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What constitutes an “act of communication” under stalking statute	State argued any transmitted message qualifies	Kendall argued only speaking to victim constitutes act	Act requires transmission of a message to the victim
Sufficiency of evidence on act of communication	State contends evidence shows transmission via calls received	Kendall contends no direct message conveyed	Evidence sufficient to establish imparted communication
Violating the protective order: recklessness vs knowingly/intentional	State argued Kendall knowingly violated the order	Kendall argued conduct was reckless/justified	Court may convict for knowingly or intentionally violating the order; evidence supports intentional/knowingly violation
Venue for violation of protective order	Venue in Reno County proper due to recipient’s location	Disputed location should affect venue	Venue proper in Reno County; surplusage in complaint ignored

State v. Urban, 291 Kan. 214 (2010) (statutory construction standard; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (lawful interpretation of statutes; legislative intent when unambiguous)
State v. Dale, 293 Kan. 660 (2011) (statutory interpretation; intent governs when possible)