State v. Swindler
294 P.3d 308
| Kan. | 2013Background
- Swindler was convicted of rape of a minor (L.C., under 14) under K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2).
- The charged theory framed rape as alternative means; evidence at trial centered on penetration by a finger.
- Swindler moved to suppress statements, written confessions, and a drawing from a KBI interview, arguing custodial interrogation and nonconsensual coercion.
- District court denied suppression, ruling the interview was investigatory, not custodial, and the confessions voluntary.
- Jury instruction defined sexual intercourse as penetration by finger, male organ, or any object; Swindler was sentenced to life without parole for 25 years; journal entry error alleged regarding lifetime post-release vs. parole with electronic monitoring.
- This court reverses the conviction, grants suppression, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rape is an alternative means crime requiring super-sufficiency as to each means | Swindler | Swindler | Swindler fails; Britt holds rape is not alternative means; evidence supported single act of penetration |
| Whether Swindler's statements were admissible under voluntariness and Miranda | Swindler | State | District court erred; statements and drawing suppressed under Fifth Amendment voluntariness (and related Miranda analysis) |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | State | State | Error not harmless; admission of confessions likely affected the verdict; conviction reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Britt, 295 Kan. 1018 (2012) (rape not created as alternative means; mere description of act; requires super-sufficiency of evidence for each means)
- State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012) (identifying alternative means; structure of statute; not creating distinct means unless elements differ)
- State v. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. 525 (2012) (unanimity not required as to means; must show evidence for each means if alternative means exists)
- State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484 (2012) (factors for custodial vs investigatory interrogation; standard of review)
- State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13 (2010) (caution against broad extension of coercion findings; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Swanigan, 279 Kan. 18 (2005) (confession involuntary under totality of circumstances)
- State v. Grady, 766 N.W.2d 729 () (comparative custodial analysis (Wisconsin; cited for Miranda timing))
- State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017 (2009) (Miranda rights not anticipatorily invoked outside custodial context)