State v. Vessar
122769
| Kan. Ct. App. | Jun 11, 2021Background
- Vessar was convicted in 2014 of sex offenses that required periodic offender registration; he moved between counties (Douglas, Shawnee, Wyandotte).
- Shawnee County had appointed registration procedures and an informal practice of checking noncompliance after the 15th of the next month.
- Vessar was originally indicted for failing to register in January 2017; that jury trial ended in a mistrial.
- After the mistrial a grand jury returned a superseding indictment adding counts for failing to register in April 2017 and failing to notify Shawnee County of his July 2017 move.
- At the second jury trial Vessar was acquitted on the January count but convicted on the April and July counts; he was sentenced to 19 months (with 24 months probation).
- On appeal he challenged (1) the superseding indictment as an impermissible amendment, (2) the constitutionality of KORA as a strict‑liability felony, (3) the trial court’s refusal to instruct on mental culpability, and (4) sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Vessar's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of superseding indictment / amendment rule | State amended original indictment without court leave in violation of K.S.A. 22-3015(b); dismissal required | Superseding indictment is a new grand‑jury action (not an amendment); counts could have been joined; no prejudice | Superseding indictment does not invoke the amendment statute; district court did not err in denying dismissal |
| Constitutionality of KORA as strict liability (mens rea) | KORA allows felony strict liability so defendants cannot raise mistake‑of‑fact defenses; unconstitutional as applied because office practices created confusion | Rehaif and other authority distinguishable; facts do not support reasonable mistake; harmless / no standing | Claim rejected: (1) inadequately briefed as a constitutional claim, (2) factual record undermines mistake‑of‑fact theory so Vessar lacks standing, (3) no persuasive authority to read a mens rea into KORA |
| Jury instruction on mental culpability | Court should have instructed on intent because of unique factual circumstances and alleged official misstatements | KORA is strict liability; intent is not an element and such instruction would be legally inappropriate | No error: request preserved but instruction would contradict statutory law, so refusal was proper |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence did not show intentional failure to register | Intent is not required for KORA violations; record shows missed deadlines and failure to notify | Convictions supported: under strict‑liability standard evidence was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carpenter, 228 Kan. 115 (court may not rewrite a grand jury charge by amendment)
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (interpretation of 'knowingly' in federal criminal statutes)
- Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957) (notice requirements for status‑based registration offenses)
- State v. Stoll, 312 Kan. 726 (standing to challenge strict‑liability KORA convictions)
- State v. Williams, 308 Kan. 1439 (standard for reviewing jury‑instruction errors)
- State v. Chandler, 307 Kan. 657 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)