State v. Tully
262 P.3d 314
| Kan. | 2011Background
- A.C., 14, alleges Tully raped her at a party while intoxicated.
- Tully, 19, contends intercourse was consensual and that A.C. was overcome by force or fear.
- Post-party, A.C. and others report the incident; A.C. sought medical exam with minimal physical findings.
- J.C. and G.N. testified inconsistently about what occurred; some statements suggested admission of rape.
- Trial evidence centered on credibility of A.C. vs. Tully; defense emphasized lack of force and lack of injuries.
- Convicted of rape; Court of Appeals affirmed; Kansas Supreme Court granted review and reversed for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postarrest silence Doyle issue | Tully's postarrest silence violated Doyle. | Door opened by defense/cooperation implied; Doyle applies. | Doyle/Doyle-like impeachment violated; reversible error; remand for new trial. |
| Jury instruction on force | Instruction 11 correctly reflected law and the facts. | Instruction misstates force and omits critical Borthwick language; misleading. | Instruction 11 is erroneous and should not be used; potential impact on verdict; reversal proper. |
| Expert testimony on lack of trauma | Hofman qualified to opine on trauma and its absence negating rape. | No proper foundation; opinion on legal elements invaded jury’s province. | District court abused its discretion; retrial requires proper foundation or exclusion. |
| Cumulative errors | Even with some harmless, combined errors affected trial fairness. | Errors individually harmless; no cumulative prejudice. | Cumulative error analysis favors reversal; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (precludes use of postarrest silence to impeach after Miranda warnings)
- Murray v. State, 285 Kan. 503 (Kan. 2008) (limits and application of Doyle when Miranda timing unclear)
- Borthwick v. State, 255 Kan. 899 (Kan. 1994) (defines force in rape case as not requiring beating/physical restraint; fact-specific)
- Chaney v. State, 269 Kan. 10 (Kan. 2000) (recognizes subjectivity of force/fear; avoids absolute definitions)
- Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (reiterates limits on Doyle regarding prearrest silence)
- Hale v. United States, 422 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1975) (silence may be intimidating and non-probative; Doyle limitation context)
- Ward v. State, 292 Kan. 541 (Kan. 2011) (standard for harmless error in non-constitutional contexts; context for Chapman)