State v. King
274 P.3d 599
| Kan. | 2012Background
- June 2, 2005: Stanturf observed King driving without headlights; King fled; tickets issued and a misdemeanor summons kept.
- June 17, 2005: disturbance call; King on porch area; Stanturf arrested King for June 2 misdemeanors and searched, discovering cocaine and cash.
- Defense theory: witnesses would show police harassment and fabrication; three witnesses proffered to support a planted-drug theory were excluded.
- King was convicted of possession of cocaine and possession without a drug tax stamp; sentences run concurrently; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Kansas Supreme Court granted review to address legality of arrest, exclusion of witnesses, and Apprendi-based sentencing concerns; court ultimately held arrest proper, porch not protected curtilage, exclusion of witnesses error, and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the arrest lawful under 22-2401(d)? | King contends arrest for prior misdemeanor lacked proper timing. | State argues 22-2401(d) permits arrest when crime has been or is being committed in officer's view. | Arrest lawful under 22-2401(d) without timing restriction. |
| Was arrest conducted on the screened porch permissible under Fourth Amendment? | King asserts porch is part of home/curtilage; warrantless arrest invalid. | Officer could proceed as porch not private curtilage; King could be asked to step outside. | Porch semi-enclosed, not private curtilage; arrest on porch permissible. |
| Did the trial court err in excluding three proffered defense witnesses? | Exclusion prevented integral defense theory that arresting officer planted drugs. | Exclusion was within evidentiary discretion and not necessarily integral. | Exclusion of witnesses was error; they were relevant, admissible, noncumulative, integral to defense. |
| Was the exclusion of the witnesses harmless error? | Exclusion could not be proven harmless given reliance on witness testimony and closing arguments. | Prosecutor argued absence of defense evidence; burden on State to show harmlessness. | Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; substantial rights affected; convictions reversed and remanded for new trial. |
| Does Apprendi affect sentencing based on prior convictions? | Prior convictions should be charged/proven to a jury beyond reasonable doubt. | Court precedent governs sentencing; no Apprendi violation in current framing. | Question preserved for federal review; judgment remanded for new trial; Apprendi issue implicated. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coleman, 292 Kan. 813 (2011) (suppression standard: factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence; legal conclusions de novo)
- State v. McDaniel, 292 Kan. 443 (2011) (statutory interpretation of 22-2401; plain language governs)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081 (2006) (relevance and admissibility; probativity vs materiality in evidence)
- State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252 (2009) (right to present defense; relevance and limits of admissible evidence)
- State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless error standard for constitutional violations; standard depends on rights involved)
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987) (four-factor test for curtilage/privacy)
- Riddle, 246 Kan. 277 (1990) (warrantless arrest in home context; porch exception)
- Gibson v. Mitchell, 262 F.3d 1036 (10th Cir. 2001) (materiality of excluded evidence for defense)
- Boldridge v. State, 289 Kan. 618 (2009) (hearsay when not offered for truth of matter asserted)