514 P.3d 368
Kan.2022Background
- In 2014 Johnny C. White pled guilty to aggravated indecent liberties with a child for abusing his granddaughter. He later served a sentence at Hutchinson Correctional Facility.
- In 2017, C.U., a friend of White's granddaughter, reported that White sexually abused her during a sleepover when she was about seven or eight.
- While incarcerated, White was interviewed and took a polygraph; investigators told him he failed and subsequently obtained a 2017 confession admitting he touched C.U.'s vagina but denying she touched his penis.
- The State charged two off-grid counts of aggravated indecent liberties; the district court excluded any reference to the polygraph, admitted White’s 2014 videotaped confession (and a conviction stipulation), and later allowed the State to amend the charged date range to match trial testimony.
- The jury convicted White on count one (touching C.U.) and acquitted on count two (forcing C.U. to touch him); White was sentenced to hard 25 life. The Court of Appeals assumed admission of the 2014 video might be error but held any error harmless; the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (White) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of polygraph evidence — violation of right to present a defense | Exclusion proper because polygraph is unreliable and White’s proffer did not show polygraph results caused his confession | Exclusion prevented jury from understanding why White recanted earlier denials and thus blocked a full defense | Court: No constitutional error; White’s proffer focused on blackouts/alcoholism, not the polygraph, so exclusion was not reversible |
| 2. Amendment of information (date range) | Amendment allowed under K.S.A. 22-3201(e); no prejudice to defendant | Amendment eliminated a potentially viable alibi because White allegedly moved out during original dates | Court: No abuse of discretion; State has latitude on time periods and record showed only a minimally developed alibi |
| 3. Admission of 2014 videotaped confession (propensity evidence) | Video admissible under K.S.A. 60-455(d); probative and properly weighed against prejudice | Video highly prejudicial and unnecessary because White stipulated to prior conviction and less prejudicial alternatives existed | Court: Even if admission was error, it was harmless given C.U.’s testimony, White’s 2017 confession, stipulation, and other evidence |
| 4. Cumulative error | No significant errors that, taken together, prejudiced White | Multiple rulings (polygraph exclusion, amendment, video) cumulatively denied a fair trial | Court: No cumulative error; only one potential error identified and overall record does not show substantial prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (exclusion of circumstances prompting a confession can violate the right to present a defense)
- State v. Swint, 302 Kan. 326 (2015) (requirements for proffers to preserve excluded-evidence claims)
- State v. Evans, 275 Kan. 95 (2003) (proponent must make known substance of expected evidence in proffer)
- State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207 (1989) (prosecutor has latitude to amend time periods for child-sex offenses when defendant is only denying allegations)
- State v. Bischoff, 281 Kan. 195 (2006) (standard for reviewing amendments to information)
- State v. Boysaw, 309 Kan. 526 (2019) (framework for weighing probative value versus prejudice of other-crimes evidence)
- State v. Longstaff, 296 Kan. 884 (2013) (harmless-error analysis: whether reasonable probability the error affected outcome)
- State v. Rhoiney, 314 Kan. 497 (2021) (cumulative-error standard)