State v. Santos-Vega
299 Kan. 11
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Santos-Vega was convicted of two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child involving 11-year-old S.T. and given hard 25 life sentences under Jessica’s Law.
- The State charged four sex offenses, but jury acquitted two rape counts and convicted on the two aggravated indecent liberty counts.
- The offenses pertain to three separate incidents in July 2008 when S.T. stayed at a home where Santos-Vega lived.
- An order in limine prohibited references to Santos-Vega’s postarrest silence; the State’s witness testified about invoking rights, prompting defense objection.
- The district court did not give a unanimity instruction; a later Doyle/Miranda issue regarding a detective’s testimony arose during trial.
- The court reversed the convictions for a new trial and did not address sentencing issues at this time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity instruction in a multi-act case | Santos-Vega argues lack of unanimity instruction; jury could disagree on act. | State concedes multiple acts, but argues error was not clearly reversible. | Unanimity instruction error; reversal required due to cumulative error with Doyle violation. |
| Unanimity requirement and multiple acts | State failed to elect specific acts for each count. | No unanimity instruction given; contention acknowledged. | Error exists; reversal warranted under multi-act framework. |
| Mistrial denied after Doyle/Miranda violation | Detective improperly described Santos-Vega’s Miranda invocation, violating order and Doyle. | Trial court denied mistrial; remedy sought via admonitions was unnecessary. | District court abused discretion; Doyle violation contributed to prejudice. |
| Cumulative error and fair trial | Aggregate impact of unanimity gap and Doyle violation denied fair trial. | Santos-Vega bears burden to show prejudice beyond single errors. | Cumulative error reversed; new trial ordered; sentencing issues not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 290 Kan. 696 (2010) (unanimity issues in multi-act cases; some errors may be harmless)
- State v. Voyles, 284 Kan. 239 (2007) (unanimity error in multiple acts; need to elect or instruct on acts)
- State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625 (2013) (recognition of unanimity in complex factual scenarios)
- State v. Wade, 295 Kan. 916 (2012) (review of jury questions and remedial instructions in trials)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976) (prohibition on using postarrest silence for impeachment)
- State v. Gadelkarim, 256 Kan. 671 (1994) (invited error rule and Doyle implications)
- Tully v. State, 293 Kan. 176 (2011) (Miranda/Doyle violations affecting credibility in trial)
- Ward, 292 Kan. 541 (2011) (harmless error standard for non-constitutional issues)
- McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012) (abuse of discretion standard for mistrial decisions)