State v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
374 P.3d 680
Kan.2016Background
- Spencer Gifts, LLC, a retail business, was charged in 2010 with 10 counts of promoting obscenity harmful to minors after a year-long investigation and a search warrant seizure. Spencer Gifts was never placed on an appearance bond; proceedings began by summons.
- Spencer Gifts moved to dismiss for violation of Kansas' statutory speedy-trial provision (K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 22-3402(b))—which provides dismissal if a person "charged with a crime and held to answer on an appearance bond" is not tried within 180 days after arraignment.
- The district court initially denied the motion, then a subsequent judge granted dismissal relying on precedent extending the statute to defendants not on bond.
- The State appealed; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed in a split decision, citing City of Elkhart v. Bollacker.
- The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed whether 22-3402(b) applies to defendants not held on appearance bond, whether Bollacker should be overruled, whether corporate defendants are entitled to statutory speedy-trial protection, and whether K.S.A. 22-3402(g) barred relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 22-3402(b) applies when defendant was not held on an appearance bond | State: statute applies only to defendants held on appearance bond | Spencer Gifts: Bollacker interprets statute to apply to defendants served with notice/summons | Court: statute unambiguously applies only to those held on an appearance bond; Bollacker was wrongly construed and is overruled for future cases |
| Whether City of Elkhart v. Bollacker should be overruled | State: Bollacker added words to statute, violating plain-language rules; should be overruled | Spencer Gifts: Bollacker is controlling precedent and legislative acquiescence supports it | Court: Overrules Bollacker as inconsistent with statutory interpretation rules, but does not disturb Spencer Gifts' vested dismissal |
| Whether a corporate defendant (LLC) can assert statutory speedy-trial rights | State: corporations should not get speedy-trial protection like natural persons | Spencer Gifts: LLCs are statutorily "person[s]" and may assert statutory rights | Court: State waived the argument; weight of authority disfavors exclusion and LLC is a "person" under statute |
| Whether K.S.A. 22-3402(g) (delay attribution correction) bars dismissal here | State: subsection (g) prevents dismissal when delays initially charged to defendant are later charged to State | Spencer Gifts: no periods were reattributed here; issue was applicability of statute | Court: (g) does not apply; no reattribution occurred that would bar dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Elkhart v. Bollacker, 243 Kan. 543 (1988) (held speedy-trial statute applied even when defendant was not held on an appearance bond)
- State v. Mathenia, 262 Kan. 890 (1997) (interpreting 22-3402(2) to apply only to persons held to answer on an appearance bond)
- State v. Brownlee, 302 Kan. 491 (2015) (held K.S.A. 22-3402(g) can bar dismissal where delay initially attributed to defendant is later charged to the State)
- State v. Dupree, 304 Kan. 43 (2016) (explains statutory speedy-trial is procedural and that mere passage of time does not automatically vest a dismissal right)