State v. Newman-Caddell
121956
| Kan. Ct. App. | Oct 22, 2021Background
- Defendant Brady Allen Newman-Caddell pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sodomy, and two counts of rape; the State sought an upward durational departure based on (1) "crime of extreme sexual violence" / sexual predator and (2) future dangerousness. He stipulated to the aggravators and waived a jury finding.
- Victim H.J. was abducted from a parking lot, sexually assaulted by two men (Luth and Newman-Caddell), and left in a field; medical exam and DNA linked both men to sexual assaults and to items recovered from a car.
- Multiple other women testified about prior abusive and sexually violent conduct by Newman-Caddell, and DNA linked him to an earlier multi‑assailant rape (T.H.).
- Psychiatric expert Dr. Gregory Saathoff testified Newman-Caddell displayed both predatory and reactive aggression, was a sexual predator, and posed a risk of future violence.
- The district court found both aggravating factors proven beyond a reasonable doubt, departed on aggravated kidnapping and one rape count, and imposed a 660‑month sentence; on appeal Newman‑Caddell argued (a) aggravated kidnapping is not a "crime of extreme sexual violence" and (b) the future‑dangerousness aggravator violated due process.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held aggravated kidnapping qualified under the statutory definition because the charged kidnapping was committed to facilitate nonconsensual intercourse/sodomy, and that single valid aggravator was sufficient so it did not resolve the future‑dangerousness challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Newman‑Caddell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether aggravated kidnapping qualifies as a "crime of extreme sexual violence" for an upward durational departure | Aggravated kidnapping lacks an express nonconsent element and thus cannot satisfy the statute's subsection covering nonconsensual sexual acts | Statute uses the broad term "crime involving a nonconsensual act of sexual intercourse or sodomy," so any charged crime that involves nonconsensual intercourse/sodomy (including kidnapping to facilitate rape) fits | Court: Aggravated kidnapping here involved nonconsensual sex (it was committed to facilitate rape/ aggravated sodomy), so it qualifies; departure affirmed |
| Whether the "future dangerousness" aggravator violated due process / was legally insufficient | Challenges the validity of the future‑dangerousness finding | Court relied on testimonial and expert evidence to support the finding | Court: Did not decide the merits because the crime‑of‑extreme‑sexual‑violence aggravator alone legally sustained the enhanced sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lewis, 299 Kan. 828 (2014) (defines categories of an illegal sentence)
- State v. Jamerson, 309 Kan. 211 (2019) (appellate standard: unlimited review for sentence legality)
- Jarvis v. Kansas Dep't of Revenue, 312 Kan. 156 (2020) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language and legislative intent)
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899 (2016) (use ordinary meaning of common words in statutes)
- State v. Williams, 299 Kan. 870 (2014) (criminal statutes construed in favor of accused but interpretation must be reasonable)
- State v. Spencer, 291 Kan. 796 (2011) (interpreting scope of "crimes of extreme sexual violence" under Jessica's Law)