State v. Stieben, 256 P.3d 796

On April 20, 2006, Trooper Hemel observed Stieben's eastbound car drift toward the fog line in a 65 mph zone for about half a mile; after 25 seconds he stopped the car.
Stieben failed multiple field sobriety tests and the HGN test; she was arrested and refused a breath test at the detention center.
An inventory of the car found trash but no alcohol or contraband; the State charged Stieben with DUI and improper lane use.
Judge Love denied a motion to disqualify him, and Judge Hood denied suppression; the amendment removed the improper-lane-use count.
At trial, Hemel testified about driving and sobriety tests; the jury found Stieben guilty of DUI; she appealed arguing improper jury handling and other issues.
The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review to address the jury-question handling and related constitutional rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly answered a jury question about the fog line.	Stieben	Stieben and state	Reversible error; improper response and intrusion into jury factfinding.
Did the court's answer invade the jury's role and deny trial by jury?	Stieben's rights to jury determination were offended	The court clarified a factual issue	Yes; invasion of jury function; error reversible.
Was harmless-error analysis appropriate given the jury’s question?	Stieben	Harmless error analysis controls	Harmless error analysis not applicable; cannot conclude no effect on substantial rights.
Should the conviction be affirmed despite potential suppression issues?	Stieben	Preservation of issues not necessary after reversal on jury question	Not addressed; reversal on jury-question error suffices.
Should other appellate arguments be considered given the reversal?	Stieben	Other issues preserved for review	Unnecessary to address other arguments due to reversal.

State v. Bandt, 219 Kan. 816 (1976) (duty to clarify when jury is obviously confused; read testimony when requested)
State v. Dunnan, 223 Kan. 428 (1978) (court must provide accurate guidance when testifying to testimony; harmless error analysis not appropriate)
State v. Brice, 276 Kan. 758 (2003) (jury determining credibility; court may not state factual findings as juror would)
State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3 (1994) (statutory duty to read back testimony when jury requests; failure not subject to harmless error)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (due process; jury must decide facts necessary to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (2011) (requires assessing whether trial error affected substantial rights)
Brinegar v. United States, 515 U.S. 275 (1995) (not used; placeholder to reflect US Supreme Court philosophy on jury rights)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993) (reiterated standard for jury trial rights)