State v. Rozell
508 P.3d 358
| Kan. | 2022Background
- Rozell, involved in a minor car collision in Missouri, later submitted a medical bill and an insurance claim against a Kansas insurance policy held by the other driver’s father (a Kansas resident).
- State Farm initially assigned the claim out-of-state; it was eventually referred to a special investigations agent based in Kansas, who took investigative steps in Kansas (interviews, photos, review of records).
- State Farm declined the claim, filed a fraud report with the Kansas Insurance Department, and the State charged Rozell with insurance fraud and making a false information.
- At a preliminary hearing a judge found probable cause and bound Rozell over; a subsequent judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal.
- The State sought review in the Kansas Supreme Court, which reversed both lower courts and remanded, holding Kansas had territorial jurisdiction and that probable cause existed to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kansas may exercise "proximate result" jurisdiction under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5106(b)(3) for out-of-state acts that produce effects in Kansas | Kansas has jurisdiction because Rozell’s out-of-state acts produced proximate results in Kansas (investigation, expense, attempted influence on a Kansas-insured policy) | Kansas lacks extraterritorial reach; criminal acts occurred outside Kansas so Kansas cannot prosecute | Held: Yes. Jurisdiction exists where an out-of-state act that is a constituent/material element or a substantial/integral part of a continuing criminal plan causes an effect in Kansas close enough in time or cause to be a proximate result. |
| Whether the Court of Appeals correctly read an extra statutory requirement that the charged offense must contemplate the in-state consequence | The Court of Appeals improperly added that requirement; the statute permits proximate-result jurisdiction even if the crime’s elements do not reference the specific in-state effect | The Court of Appeals: proximate-result jurisdiction requires the charged statute to contemplate the in-state harm | Held: Court of Appeals erred; the statute’s plain language does not require the charged offense to contemplate the in-state consequence; the post-2010 statutory amendment even broadened scope. |
| Whether the State presented sufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing (probable cause) that Rozell’s acts caused a proximate result in Kansas | Testimony showed a Kansas-based investigator acted because of Rozell’s claim (interviews, photos, investigation) — sufficient for probable cause that effects occurred in Kansas | Rozell argued State failed to show actual harm or a proximate effect in Kansas | Held: Sufficient. Under the probable-cause standard, evidence supported a reasonable belief Rozell’s submissions caused proximate results in Kansas. |
| Whether venue was resolved by lower courts | State did not prevail below on jurisdiction; venue was raised in motions | Rozell argued trial must be in county where offense occurred | Held: Not decided by the Court — venue was not addressed because lower courts didn’t rule on sufficiency regarding venue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (establishes that out-of-state acts producing detrimental in-state effects may be punished by the state where effects occur)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (multijurisdictional crimes can be tried where any part was committed)
- State v. Jurdan, 258 Kan. 848 (Kansas cases addressing proximate-result analysis prior to statutory amendment)
- State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. App. 2d 397 (Court of Appeals proximate-result discussion relied on by lower courts)
- State v. Sokolaski, 26 Kan. App. 2d 333 (Court of Appeals proximate-result discussion relied on by lower courts)
- State v. Rimmer, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa case upholding jurisdiction where out-of-state acts produced in-state investigative/administrative effects)
- United States v. Bocachica, 57 F. Supp. 3d 630 (prosecution not unfair where defendant’s multistate fraud could reasonably lead to prosecution somewhere)
- State v. Washington, 293 Kan. 732 (probable cause standard at preliminary hearing)