State v. Wycoff
110393
| Kan. | Jun 30, 2017Background
- Defendant Darwin Estol Wycoff was charged under K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 (refusal to submit to chemical testing).
- Wycoff challenged the statute as facially unconstitutional; the district court dismissed the charge.
- This Court (in Wycoff I) previously affirmed the dismissal, adopting the analysis in State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (2016) (Ryce I), which held K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 facially unconstitutional.
- The State sought a stay of the mandate pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield v. North Dakota. The Court granted the stay, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Birchfield, and the parties submitted supplemental briefs.
- After reconsideration in light of Birchfield, the Kansas Supreme Court (in this opinion on rehearing) again held 8-1025 facially unconstitutional and affirmed dismissal of the charge against Wycoff.
- Justice Stegall dissented (reiterating his prior Ryce dissent); Justice Rosen did not participate; Senior Judge Malone sat on the panel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 is facially constitutional | State: statute validly imposes penalty for refusing chemical testing under implied-consent regime | Wycoff: statute (and the related statutory framework) violates constitutional limits and is facially invalid | Court: statute is facially unconstitutional; conviction dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Birchfield alters the validity of 8-1025 | State: Birchfield supports upholding statutes penalizing refusal to blood testing | Wycoff: Birchfield does not change the statutory-interpretation defects identified in Ryce I | Court: Birchfield requires some analytical modification but does not change the ultimate conclusion that 8-1025 is facially unconstitutional |
| Effect of state statutory interpretation on the implied-consent scheme | State: statutory construction permits operation of 8-1025 within Kansas scheme | Wycoff: statutory construction of 8-1025 and K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1001 renders the refusal statute invalid | Court: state-law grounds of statutory interpretation (including interplay with 8-1001) support invalidating 8-1025 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ryce, 303 Kan. 899, 368 P.3d 342 (Kan. 2016) (held K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 8-1025 facially unconstitutional)
- State v. Wycoff, 303 Kan. 885, 367 P.3d 1258 (Kan. 2016) (initial Wycoff decision affirming dismissal)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (U.S. 2016) (addressed constitutionality of criminalizing refusal to submit to blood testing)