State v. Reed
352 P.3d 530
Kan.2015Background
- Samuel Reed was convicted of attempted first-degree murder after shooting victim Amos Becknell; co-defendant Michael Price pled guilty to aggravated battery and testified for the State under a plea agreement.
- On trial day Becknell was reluctant to testify; the judge removed jurors and nonparties, questioned Becknell in the courtroom outside the jury's presence, concluded Becknell refused and was "unavailable," and the court admitted Becknell's preliminary-hearing testimony.
- Reed was convicted; post-verdict he filed multiple motions for new trial and later a supplemental motion raising ineffective-assistance claims outside the 14-day statutory deadline. The district court treated the untimely motion like a K.S.A. 60-1507-type proceeding, held an evidentiary hearing, and denied relief.
- At sentencing the district judge granted a downward durational departure from the guidelines, citing disparity in parole-eligibility between attempted and completed murder and other factors, and imposed 272 months.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on all points; this Court granted review, affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because reliance on sentencing-guidelines disparity was legal error.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Reed's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to consider ineffective-assistance claim raised in untimely motion for new trial | Untimely motion deprived district court and appellate courts of jurisdiction to decide the claim | Reed: district court nonetheless heard the claim; appellate review appropriate | Court: jurisdiction exists; ineffective-assistance claims are unique and may be heard (Kirby/Van Cleave remain good law) |
| Closure of courtroom during judge's inquiry into witness availability — public-trial violation | State: no Sixth Amendment violation or harmless | Reed: closure (emptying courtroom) violated Sixth Amendment public-trial right | Court: no public-trial right attached to this collateral, in-court inquiry into witness availability; no violation |
| Unavailability of witness and admission of prior testimony; counsel ineffective for not objecting | State: judge properly found Becknell unavailable; preliminary hearing provided prior opportunity for confrontation | Reed: judge should have ordered witness to testify under contempt before declaring unavailable; motives at preliminary hearing differed | Court: court did not need to order contempt; judge did not abuse discretion in finding unavailability; prior hearing cross-examination sufficient (motives need only be similar); counsel not ineffective |
| Prosecutor questioning witness (Price) about plea agreement truthfulness; counsel ineffective for not objecting | State: questioning proper to establish plea terms; not misconduct | Reed: such questioning bolstered witness credibility improperly | Court: questions were proper or at most cumulative of oath; counsel not ineffective |
| Downward durational departure based on parole-eligibility disparity | State (cross-appeal): departure improper; reliance on guidelines disparity is legal error | Reed: judge considered other mitigating factors (age, criminal-history context) sufficient to support departure | Court: a district judge cannot base departure on belief that guidelines mis-specified parole eligibility; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing with articulated findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1984) (four-part test for closing criminal proceedings; closure requires overriding interest, narrow scope, alternatives considered, and adequate findings)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1986) (experience-and-logic test for public access to proceedings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (public-trial right may give way rarely; Waller test reiterated)
- State v. Kirby, 272 Kan. 1170 (Kan. 2002) (untimely/new claims of ineffective assistance may be treated like collateral attacks; appellate consideration under certain circumstances)
- State v. Jefferson, 287 Kan. 28 (Kan. 2008) (witness refusal can render witness unavailable; discussion of federal Rule 804 not rigidly required)
- State v. Hines, 296 Kan. 608 (Kan. 2013) (trial court must state on the record the factual bases for departure; conclusory or catch-all statements insufficient)
- State v. Van Cleave, 239 Kan. 117 (Kan. 1986) (remand to district court for evidentiary hearing on ineffective-assistance claims raised late)