State v. Taylor, 122668

Background

March 2018: Police responded to a disturbance at a Hutchison Family Dollar; Taylor had a verbal/physical confrontation with the manager and was arrested for threatening the manager.
Officer Long searched Taylor incident to arrest and removed a small plastic container from Taylor's front pocket; inside, wrapped in a paper towel, was a substance the officer and a field test identified as marijuana.
Taylor was charged with felony possession of marijuana and misdemeanor disorderly conduct; he repeatedly changed counsel, missed hearings, and underwent a competency evaluation before arraignment on January 11, 2019.
Multiple continuances followed (defense suppression motion, court docket conflicts, unavailable witnesses, defense-requested continuances and a substitution of counsel); Taylor’s jury trial was ultimately held December 17, 2019, and he was convicted.
On appeal Taylor argued (1) insufficient evidence of knowledge/possession of marijuana and (2) statutory speedy-trial violations based largely on a March continuance he contends he did not consent to and was absent from.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for marijuana possession (knowledge element)	Taylor lacked knowledge the container held marijuana; he was merely "holding" it for a friend and did not intend to possess it	Officer found the container in Taylor's pocket, opened it, and Taylor made inconsistent statements; circumstantial and demonstrative evidence support knowledge	Affirmed: evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, permitted a rational juror to find Taylor knew the substance was marijuana; appellate court will not reweigh credibility
Statutory speedy trial (K.S.A. 22-3402(b))	Trial began 214 days after arraignment; March–May continuance (which Taylor says he neither consented to nor was present for) should be charged to the State	Much of the delay was caused or tolled by defendant (motions, counsel changes); even if some delay were charged to the State, K.S.A. 22-3402(g) prevents dismissal absent constitutional speedy-trial violation or prosecutorial misconduct	Affirmed: court need not decide whether some delay should be charged to the State because subsection (g) bars dismissal in these circumstances unless a constitutional violation or prosecutorial misconduct is shown (none established)
Prosecutorial misconduct exception and preservation	Taylor contends the State’s failure to inform him of the continuance amounts to prosecutorial misconduct that would avoid the statutory bar	The State says no misconduct; responsibility to inform client rests with defense counsel; issue was not raised below	Not reached on the merits: Taylor failed to preserve or develop the prosecutorial-misconduct argument in the trial court; court declines to consider the unpreserved claim

Key Cases Cited

State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657, 414 P.3d 713 (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
State v. Rizal, 310 Kan. 199, 445 P.3d 734 (circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction)
State v. Keel, 302 Kan. 560, 357 P.3d 251 (knowledge element for controlled-substance possession)
State v. Beaver, 41 Kan. App. 2d 124, 200 P.3d 490 (possession defined: exclusive, joint, or constructive)
State v. Vaughn, 288 Kan. 140, 200 P.3d 446 (delays caused by defendant toll the speedy trial clock)
State v. Brownlee, 302 Kan. 491, 354 P.3d 525 (K.S.A. 22-3402(g) bars dismissal for certain delays initially attributed to the defendant)