State v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
348 P.3d 611
Kan. Ct. App.2015Background
- The State charged Spencer Gifts, LLC with promoting obscenity harmful to minors; prosecution was initiated by summons and Spencer Gifts appeared through counsel and pleaded not guilty.
- Spencer Gifts was never held in custody or required to post an appearance bond; it repeatedly appeared and requested continuances from Nov. 2010 to Jun. 2011.
- More than 180 days passed after arraignment without trial; Spencer Gifts moved to dismiss under the statutory speedy-trial provision K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3402(b).
- The State argued the statute applies only to persons "held to answer on an appearance bond," so it did not apply to an LLC summoned to appear. The district court initially agreed with the State but a senior judge later dismissed the complaint relying on precedent.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Bollacker and Palmquist control: the 180-day statutory speedy-trial right applies to defendants required to appear by summons or notice, even if not on an appearance bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 22-3402(b) applies when defendant was summoned, not held on an appearance bond | Statute applies to any charged person compelled to appear (Bollacker/Palmquist); summons effectively secures appearance and subjects defendant to sanctions | Statute applies only to persons held to answer on an appearance bond; LLC not subject to arrest/incarceration so statute inapplicable | Court held statute applies to defendants summoned to appear; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether corporate status (LLC) prevents application of the speedy-trial statute | Corporate defendants suffer similar harms from delayed prosecution and can be criminally charged; statutes criminalize nonappearance and authorize fines | Corporations cannot be incarcerated or arrested by surety, so the appearance-bond language makes statute inapplicable to corporations | Court treated corporate defendant like other persons for statute’s purposes and applied precedent to affirm dismissal |
| Whether precedent (Bollacker) should be reconsidered | Precedent binding and legislature’s inaction suggests acceptance; practical parity between summons and bond | (State) Bollacker misconstrues plain statutory language limiting the statute to bond-held defendants | Court followed Bollacker; concurrence urged Supreme Court to revisit the decision but did not change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Elkhart v. Bollacker, 243 Kan. 543 (1988) (speedy-trial statute applied where defendant was notified to appear rather than held on appearance bond)
- State v. Mathenia, 262 Kan. 890 (1997) (noting speedy-trial provision refers to defendants held to answer on appearance bond)
- City of Overland Park v. Fricke, 226 Kan. 496 (1979) (timing for speedy-trial calculations following appeal)
- State v. Blizzard, 43 Kan. App. 2d 418 (2010) (distinguishing circumstances where defendant was not held on any order restricting liberty)
- State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41 (2010) (statutory-construction standards reviewed de novo)