282 P.3d 643
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Parker appeals his rape and related convictions alleging pretrial publicity warranted moving the trial or funding a public-opinion poll, which district court denied.
- Court used special jury-selection measures (written questionnaires, small-group questioning) to counter publicity and found a fair, impartial jury could be seated in Salina.
- Trial evidence showed a 94-year-old hospitalized victim (E.A.) was assaulted in her hospital room by Parker, who manipulated and touched her without consent.
- DNA swabs from Parker’s hands contained significant E.A. DNA; officer cited probable cause and exigent circumstances to seize without a warrant.
- Parker moved to suppress DNA evidence; district court ruled exclusion unnecessary, admitting the swabs at trial.
- Jury convicted Parker on multiple counts (rape, attempted rape, aggravated sexual battery, battery, aggravated burglary) with a mitigating factor for vulnerability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-opinion poll funding abuse | Parker | Parker | No abuse of discretion; court could rely on jury measures already used |
| Change of venue | Parker | Parker | No abuse of discretion; Saline venue adequate with impartial jury |
| Sufficiency of consent/force/powerlessness | Parker | Parker | Sufficient evidence supports lack of consent, force, and physical powerlessness |
| Alternative means doctrine for rape/attempted rape | Parker | Parker | Rape/attempted rape do not require both finger and penis penetration; alternative means doctrine not applicable |
| DNA swabs admissibility | Parker | Parker | Probable cause plus exigent circumstances justified warrantless DNA collection; admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schreiner, 46 Kan. App. 2d 778 (2011) (rape definition not limited to penile penetration; alternative means not required)
- State v. Verge, 272 Kan. 501 (2001) (publicity alone not enough to establish prejudice; burden on defendant)
- State v. Higginbotham, 271 Kan. 582 (2001) (factors for change of venue; ease of juror selection matters)
- State v. Krider, 41 Kan. App. 2d 368 (2009) (pretrial publicity and bias considerations in venue decisions)
- State v. Deiterman, 271 Kan. 975 (2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for venue rulings)
- State v. Vinyard, 32 Kan. App. 2d 39 (2003) (enclosed, distinct patient room can be a 'structure' for burglary)