State v. Newcomb
296 Kan. 1012
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Newcomb was convicted of rape and aggravated indecent liberties with his 8-year-old stepdaughter, K.S.
- The charges originated from a four-month pattern of sexual acts and threats to keep the abuse secret.
- The State amended the first count to rape during the preliminary hearing after evidence of penetration.
- Newcomb testified denying the allegations; K.S. testified to touching, penetration, and coercion.
- Newcomb challenged Jessica’s Law sentences as disproportionate under the Kansas Constitution §9; the district court found Jessica’s Law constitutional.
- The court affirmed both convictions and the sentences, rejecting all four challenges on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is rape an alternative means crime for jury unanimity purposes? | Newcomb argues multiple means exist for rape; requires unanimity on guilt for one means. | Newcomb claims the instruction creates an alternative means issue needing unanimity. | Rape is not an alternative means crime; no unanimity requirement. |
| Is aggravated indecent liberties an alternative means crime? | Newcomb argues multiple means exist for aggravated indecent liberties; requires unanimity on guilt for one means. | Newcomb contends the instruction creates alternative means. | Aggravated indecent liberties is not an alternative means crime. |
| Is the rape sentence under Jessica’s Law §9 disproportional? | Newcomb asserts the 25-year life term is disproportionate to the crime. | State contends no disproportionality under Freeman factors. | Not disproportional under Freeman factors. |
| Is the aggravated indecent liberties sentence under Jessica’s Law disproportional? | Newcomb argues the 25-year life term is disproportionately harsh, especially given comparable crimes. | State argues proportionality when compared to other offenses and sentences. | Not disproportional; first and second Freeman prongs weigh against; third prong unresolved in favor of State, but overall not disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (identifies standards for statutory interpretation of alternative means)
- Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525 (2012) (unanimity not required on means in alternative means crimes; requires super-sufficiency)
- Timley, 255 Kan. 286 (1994) (unanimity issues in alternative means cases)
- Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (rape actus reus; alternative means distinction not applicable; still valid conviction)
- Woodard, 294 Kan. 717 (2012) (Freeman proportionality test guidance for § 9 challenges)
- Seward, No. 104,098 (2012) (Seward discusses proportionality of Jessica’s Law sentences; reliance on Freeman framework)
- Ortega-Cadelan, 287 Kan. 157 (2008) (Freeman prongs guidance in § 9 analysis)
- Gomez, 290 Kan. 858 (2010) (§ 9 standard for gross disproportionality and how to apply it)