State v. Thomas, 307 Kan. 733

Background

Defendant Sheena Thomas, an exotic dancer, was convicted by a jury of aggravated battery after allegedly stabbing fellow dancer Traci Borntrager with a spiked stiletto heel at their workplace.
Jury verdict included a finding that a deadly weapon was used; the district court sentenced Thomas to probation (with an underlying prison term), ordered restitution, and orally informed her she must register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA), but the court made no on-the-record judicial finding that a deadly weapon was used.
On appeal Thomas challenged: (1) exclusion of cross-examination about a settled civil suit Borntrager had with the club; (2) alleged prosecutorial error in closing; and (3) cumulative error; the Court of Appeals affirmed conviction but vacated the KORA registration requirement and remanded for a judge-made deadly-weapon finding.
The Kansas Supreme Court granted review, affirming the conviction (rejecting confrontation and prosecutorial-error claims and finding any prosecutor misstatement harmless) but reversed the Court of Appeals’ remand as improper.
The Supreme Court held that when KORA’s duty to register requires a judicial finding (here, that a deadly weapon was used), the registration obligation springs into existence only if statutorily prescribed conditions are met; because no such on-the-record finding exists, remand to create it would improperly give the State a second chance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Thomas)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Exclusion of cross-exam on Borntrager’s settled civil suit	Exclusion violated Sixth Amendment confrontation/right to effective cross-examination about motive/bias	Suit was settled and Thomas never proffered specifics; evidence marginally relevant and risked confusion	No abuse of discretion; exclusion permissible because settled suit attenuated bias and no adequate proffer was made
Prosecutorial remarks in closing (diluting burden; misstating Pickens’ testimony)	Remarks improperly diluted proof and misstated evidence, warranting reversal	Comments within permissible scope; misstatement was isolated and harmless	No reversible error; credibility comments did not dilute burden; misstatement harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
Cumulative error claim	Multiple errors together deprived Thomas of a fair trial	Only an isolated, harmless error occurred	Rejected—no cumulative error where no multiple prejudicial errors exist
Court of Appeals’ remand to district court to make deadly-weapon finding (KORA registration)	Remand was improper because registration is not part of sentence and district court lacked jurisdiction after appeal; court should not create on-the-record finding post-affirmance	Argued court could presume finding or remand to enable meaningful review	Supreme Court reversed remand: where KORA requires a judicial on-the-record finding to trigger registration and no such finding exists, that obligation never arose; remand to manufacture the finding is improper

Key Cases Cited

Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (exposure of witness motivation is valid cross-examination purpose)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (cross-examination essential to accuracy of truth-determining process)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (trial judges have latitude to limit cross-examination for valid concerns)
State v. Rowland, 172 Kan. 224 (civil suits pending against witnesses may be probative of bias; improper exclusion can require new trial)
State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83 (prosecutorial-misconduct framework considered historically)
State v. Sherman, 305 Kan. 88 (updated prosecutorial-error harmlessness standard)
State v. Holt, 300 Kan. 985 (prosecutor may not dilute State's burden of proof)
State v. Magallanez, 290 Kan. 906 (prosecutor may not redefine reasonable doubt)
State v. Dickey, 305 Kan. 217 (remand for resentencing where sentence is illegal)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (jury must find facts increasing punishment under Sixth Amendment)