State v. Williams
299 Kan. 911
| Kan. | 2014Background
- Williams was convicted by a jury of aggravated trafficking under K.S.A. 21-3447(a)(2) for recruiting/harboring/transporting a minor to engage in sexual acts; the minor, L.M., was 15 and from Wichita; Williams allegedly recruited her and transported her to Dallas, where she performed acts for his profit under his control; trial evidence included L.M.’s testimony, hotel records, and Williams’ own trial testimony; the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed, and Williams sought review under K.S.A. 20-3018(b); the issue presented on review was whether the statute is constitutionally overbroad or vague, among others; the appellate courts analyzed standing, overbreadth, and other arguments including prosecutorial misconduct and Apprendi concerns; the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and Williams’ conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is K.S.A. 21-3447(a)(2) overbroad or vague? | Williams argues overbreadth and vagueness | Williams contends the statute unconstitutionally covers protected conduct and lacks meaning for 'used' | Not overbroad; vagueness not reached on standing grounds |
| Does Williams have standing to challenge vagueness? | Williams seeks to protect third-party First Amendment rights | State argues no standing for vagueness; overbreadth exception for First Amendment applies | Williams has standing to challenge overbreadth but not vagueness |
| Are aggravated trafficking and promoting prostitution identical offenses? | Promoting prostitution is the more specific offense; identical offense doctrine favors lesser penalty | Not identical; different elements and purposes; aggravated trafficking valid | Not identical offenses; aggravated trafficking upheld as proper charge and sentence |
| Did the prosecutor commit misconduct in closing/rebuttal? | Williams alleges remarks on credibility and burden-shifting were improper | Comments were within wide latitude to discuss evidence and respond to defense | No reversible prosecutorial misconduct; arguments fell within permissible scope |
| Did Apprendi/Ivory render prior convictions unconstitutional for sentence enhancement? | Criminal history used to enhance sentence must be charged/proven to a jury | Ivory precedent controls; no new argument compelling reversal | Apprendi/Ivory not violated; Ivory remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 46 Kan. App. 2d 36, 257 P.3d 849 (2011) (Kan. Ct. App. 2011) (upheld constitutionality of 21-3447(a)(2); discussed standing and overbreadth)
- Wilson, 267 Kan. 550, 987 P.2d 1060 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (overbreadth and vagueness considerations in statutory interpretation)
- Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S. Ct. 311, 37 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1973) (U.S. 1973) (overbreadth must be real and substantial in relation to legitimate sweep)
- Helms, 242 Kan. 511, 748 P.2d 425 (1988) (Kan. 1988) (general/specific statute interpretation; legislative intent guiding exceptions)
- Wilson (cited in overbreadth discussion), 267 Kan. 550, 987 P.2d 1060 (1999) (Kan. 1999) (as above)
- Snellings, 294 Kan. 149, 273 P.3d 739 (2012) (Kan. 2012) (identical offense sentencing doctrine and overlap analysis)
- Cooper, State v. Cooper, 285 Kan. 964, 179 P.3d 439 (2008) (Kan. 2008) (identical elements analysis for overlapping statutes)
- Gibbens, State v. Gibbens, 253 Kan. 384, 855 P.2d 937 (1993) (Kan. 1993) (procedural posture on preserving general-specific offense arguments)
- Ivory, State v. Ivory, 273 Kan. 44, 41 P.3d 781 (2002) (Kan. 2002) (Apprendi/Blakely line on prior convictions and sentencing)