Khalil-Alsalaami v. State
| Citation | 486 P.3d 1216 |
| Decision Date | 14 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 115,184,115,184 |
| Parties | Ziad K. KHALIL-ALSALAAMI, Appellant, v. STATE of Kansas, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Richard Ney, of Ney, Adams & Miller, of Wichita, argued the cause, and David L. Miller, of the same firm, was with him on the briefs for appellant.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, argued the cause, and Bethany C. Fields, deputy county attorney, Barry K. Disney, senior deputy county attorney, Barry R. Wilkerson, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
A jury convicted Ziad K. Khalil-Alsalaami of two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy in violation of K.S.A. 21-3506 and acquitted him of one count of rape charged under K.S.A. 21-3502(a)(2). After exhausting his direct appeal, Khalil-Alsalaami filed a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion seeking a new trial based on allegations of ineffective assistance of both his trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied his motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter. We initially issued an opinion affirming the Court of Appeals' decision. However, before the mandate issued, we granted the State's motion for rehearing, and the parties reargued the matter to the court.
Khalil-Alsalaami presented substantial evidence in support of his requested relief. Yet, this evidence was by no means uncontroverted, as the State also presented testimony and exhibits in opposition to Khalil-Alsalaami's claims during the K.S.A. 60-1507 evidentiary hearing. Ultimately, the district court weighed this competing evidence and resolved conflicting testimony in favor of the State.
We have long observed:
"Where findings of fact are attacked for insufficiency of evidence or as being contrary to the evidence, the supreme court's power begins and ends with the determination whether there is any competent substantial evidence to support them, and where findings are so supported they are accepted as true and will not be disturbed on appeal, and in such a case it is of no consequence that there may have been much contradictory evidence adduced at the trial which, if believed by the trial court, would have compelled entirely different findings of fact and an entirely different judgment." Fine v. Neale Construction Co. , 186 Kan. 537, Syl. ¶ 1, 352 P.2d 404 (1960).
And, in such a case, " ‘the court of appeals may not reverse [the district court] even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.’ " June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo , 591 U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2121, 207 L. Ed. 2d 566 (2020) ; see Ratzlaff v. Friedeman Service Store , 195 Kan. 548, 550, 407 P.2d 513 (1965) ().
In adhering to this controlling standard of review and the legal framework applied to Khalil-Alsalaami's claims, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirm the district court's denial of Khalil-Alsalaami's motion for relief under K.S.A. 60-1507.
Khalil-Alsalaami is originally from Iraq and worked there as a translator for the United States Army before immigrating to the United States in 2009. In May 2010, Khalil-Alsalaami and his roommates threw a party at their Manhattan, Kansas, home. C.J. attended the party with several of her friends. Several days later, C.J. and her mother reported to the Riley County Police Department that C.J. was sexually assaulted at the party. C.J. alleged that Khalil-Alsalaami vaginally raped her and orally and anally sodomized her. C.J. was 13 years old at the time of this incident.
The Riley County Police Department investigated the allegations, and Khalil-Alsalaami agreed to go to the police station for an interview. At the police station, Detective Ryan Runyan and Detective Sonia Gregoire interviewed Khalil-Alsalaami. Khalil-Alsalaami's primary language is Arabic, but no translator was present for the interview. Khalil-Alsalaami informed detectives he could speak, but not read, English. Detective Runyan advised Khalil-Alsalaami of his Miranda rights orally, reading from the department's waiver form. Detective Runyan explained:
Following this advisement, Detective Runyan began questioning Khalil-Alsalaami about the incident. Detective Runyan did not initially disclose C.J.'s age. Instead, his questions focused on whether C.J. had consented to sex. Khalil-Alsalaami argues this method of questioning is a "minimization" technique.
Khalil-Alsalaami admitted to having consensual oral and anal sex, but not vaginal sex, with C.J. on the night of the party. The detectives then arrested Khalil-Alsalaami and charged him with two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy (related to the allegations of oral and anal sex with C.J.) and one count of rape (related to the State's allegations of vaginal penetration).
Khalil-Alsalaami was initially represented by defense attorney Stephen Freed. Before trial, the State filed a motion pursuant to Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964), to secure a ruling on the admissibility of Khalil-Alsalaami's confession. While the State's Jackson v. Denno motion was pending, Khalil-Alsalaami engaged new trial counsel Barry Clark and Jeremy Platt. After conducting an initial investigation, Clark and Platt decided not to contest the admissibility of Khalil-Alsalaami's confession and entered a stipulation to its voluntariness. This stipulation was memorialized in a journal entry executed by the district judge.
The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial starting on April 19, 2011. Clark served as lead defense counsel, and Platt acted as second chair. While Khalil-Alsalaami had used an interpreter at preliminary hearing, arraignment, and during the partial Jackson v. Denno hearing, he did not use one during the jury trial.
The State called the victim, C.J.; along with J.E. and R.E., who both attended the party with her. Additionally, the State called Amanda Nall, a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) who examined C.J. several days after the alleged assault; Brandy Bertrand, a forensic biologist from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation who reported on the results of DNA testing; and the investigating detectives, among others. As part of its case-in-chief, the State also introduced a video recording of Khalil-Alsalaami's interview with detectives, which included his confession.
C.J. testified that she went to Khalil-Alsalaami's party on the evening of May 1, 2010, with her friend J.E., his brother R.E., and Roger Safford. C.J. testified that during the party, Khalil-Alsalaami required her to perform oral and anal sex while the two were together in his bedroom. She said Khalil-Alsalaami ejaculated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. State
...is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence." Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 313 Kan. 472, 486 P.3d 1216, 1239 (Kan. 2021) (citing United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013) ; Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260......
-
Granados v. Wilson
...for that of the district court, even when it reasonably finds witness testimony "unpersuasive." See Khalil-Alsalaami v. State , 313 Kan. 472, 476, 486 P.3d 1216 (2021). Even so, we may affirm the decision of a Court of Appeals panel when we agree with its conclusion but depart from its reas......
-
State v. Dinkel
...blackmail defense to the voluntary act requirement did not contribute to his deficient performance. See Khalil-Alsalaami v. State , 313 Kan. 472, 498-99, 486 P.3d 1216 (2021) (counsel's failure to pursue legal strategy can only be ineffective if it would have been meritorious).Struble's gen......
-
Phillips v. State
...there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence." Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 486 P.3d 1216, 1239 (Kan. 2021) (citing United States v. Ratliff, 719 F.3d 422, 423 (5th Cir. 2013); Zakrzewski v. McDonough, 455 F.3d 1254, 1260 (11th Ci......