State v. Miller, 264 P.3d 461

Background

Miller was charged with rape, aggravated criminal sodomy, and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child after allegedly injuring N.A., a 4-year-old, during a July 2005 incident at her family home.
The first trial ended in mistrial due to repeated violations of a pretrial order limiting admission of N.A.'s statements to a SANE; Miller sought relief under double jeopardy.
In the retrial, the State introduced N.A.'s statements to her mother, grandmother, and the SANE, along with a SANE examination showing injuries, and Miller was convicted on all counts.
Miller challenged prosecutorial misconduct, the disqualification of N.A. as a witness, the confrontation rights regarding the SANE statements, and various evidentiary and sentencing issues.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed Miller’s convictions and sentences after review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retrial after a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct violated double jeopardy	Miller contends the prosecutor intended to provoke a mistrial by repeatedly violating the order in limine.	State contends there is no evidence of prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial; Kennedy exception not satisfied.	No bar to retrial; Kennedy/Morton framework supports retrial after lack of intent to provoke mistrial.
Prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial and its impact on double jeopardy	Miller argues cumulative misconduct tainted the first trial and forced mistrial.	State argues violations were not intentional to goad mistrial and were corrected; no reversible error.	First-trial misconduct held insufficient to bar retrial under Kennedy; no double jeopardy violation.
Admission of N.A.'s statements to the SANE under Confrontation Clause	N.A.'s statements to the SANE were testimonial and should have been excluded without cross-examination.	Statements were largely for medical diagnosis/treatment; some dual purpose; not all testimonial.	N.A.'s statements to the SANE were nontestimonial under totality of circumstances; admission was constitutional.
Disqualification of N.A. as a witness and confrontation rights	Disqualification of N.A. deprived Miller of cross-examination relevant to reliability.	Court properly ruled N.A. unavailable under K.S.A. 60-460(dd) and limited hearsay accordingly.	Disqualification ruling upheld; no reversible error given preservation issues and retrial context.
Harmless error and cumulative error	Any errors cumulatively deprived Miller of a fair trial.	Even if errors occurred, they were harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt.	Cumulative error doctrine inapplicable; no reversible error found.

Key Cases Cited

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (intent to provoke mistrial governs retrial right under double jeopardy)
State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464 (Kan. 2007) (Kennedy exception applies; requires prosecutorial intent to provoke mistrial)
State v. Muck, 262 Kan. 459 (Kan. 1997) (limits on retrial when mistrial is sought for prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Cady, 254 Kan. 393 (Kan. 1994) (prosecutorial misconduct and double jeopardy analysis on retrial)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements; confrontation right framework)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (emergency vs. non-emergency statements; primary purpose analysis)
Brown v. Roberts, 285 Kan. 261 (Kan. 2007) (multifactor test for testimonial nature of statements to medical professionals)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (U.S. 2008) (limits on testimonial statements; confrontation considerations)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. / 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (forensic lab findings; business records vs. testimonial)