State v. Appleby

Citation221 P.3d 525
Decision Date20 November 2009
Docket NumberNo. 98,017.,98,017.
PartiesSTATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Benjamin A. APPLEBY, Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Kansas

Debra J. Wilson, of Capital and Conflicts Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Phill Kline, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were with him on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by LUCKERT, J.:

Benjamin A. Appleby was convicted of the attempted rape and capital murder of A.K., a 19-year-old college student, in Johnson County, Kansas.

The following issues are raised on appeal: (1) Are Appleby's convictions of capital murder and attempted rape multiplicitous, meaning his sentences for both convictions result in a double jeopardy violation? (2) Did the trial court violate Appleby's right against self-incrimination by admitting into evidence custodial statements made after Appleby had asked, while being booked on a different case, whether he would be able to talk to an attorney? (3) Did the trial court violate Appleby's right to confrontation by admitting into evidence a computer-generated report regarding population statistics related to DNA testing? (4) Did the trial court err by giving a jury instruction containing an expanded definition of "premeditation"? (5) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining whether to impose the hard 50 sentence? and (6) Is the hard 50-sentencing scheme unconstitutional under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)?

On review, we agree with Appleby's arguments regarding issue one, hold that his attempted rape conviction is multiplicitous with his capital murder conviction, and vacate the sentence imposed for the attempted rape conviction. However, we affirm Appleby's conviction and sentence for capital murder, finding that Appleby failed to establish error resulting from any of the complaints raised in issues two through six.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On June 18, 2002, A.K. was murdered while working alone as an attendant at a swimming pool near her family's home. Her brother, who also worked as a pool attendant, arrived at the pool around 5 p.m. to relieve A.K. after her shift ended, but he could not find her. He called their father, R.K., who came to the pool and searched for his daughter. Around 5:30 p.m., R.K. found A.K. in the pool's pump room, lying face down under a pool cover. She had been severely beaten, her face was battered and bloody, and her hair was matted with blood. A.K. was naked from the waist down, her sports bra had been pushed up under her arms, and her T-shirt was wrapped tightly around her neck.

Soon after this tragic discovery, police arrived and secured the pool area. In doing so, an officer recorded the name of everyone present at the scene, including a "Teddy Hoover" who was later identified as Appleby. The police also secured evidence, some of which was tested for DNA. This testing revealed DNA that did not match A.K.'s. Few other leads developed from the initial investigation.

An autopsy led to the conclusion that A.K.'s death was caused by strangulation and multiple blunt force injuries, although the strangulation would have been enough to kill A.K. Dr. Michael Handler — the forensic neuropathologist who performed the autopsy and who is board certified in anatomic pathology, neuropathology, and forensic pathology — concluded there had been both ligature and manual strangulation. According to him, it would have taken approximately 10 — and perhaps as many as 16 — minutes for the assailant to strangle A.K. Because there was petechial hemorrhaging, Dr. Handler believed there were periods when the force of strangulation was stopped.

Dr. Handler also identified other injuries, which made it appear A.K. had been in a horrible fight. Both of her eyes were blackened, her lip was cut, and her arms were bruised and scraped. A.K.'s hands, especially the knuckles and fingers, were cut, and the fingers on her left hand were contorted and broken. A.K. also had bruises on her face and both hip bones, knees, feet, and upper thighs. There were two lacerations on the back of A.K.'s head, which could have been caused by a fall or by someone beating her head against the floor.

Several months after A.K.'s death, Sergeant Scott Hansen of the Leawood Police Department went to Appleby's home in Kansas City, Kansas. At that point in time, the police knew Appleby by his alias of Teddy Hoover. Appleby agreed to speak with Sergeant Hansen and indicated that he was a self-employed pool maintenance contractor. Hansen requested a DNA elimination sample from Appleby, who said he would talk to his attorney about providing a sample. When Hansen tried to follow up later, he discovered that Appleby had left town.

Subsequent leads caused police to seek more information from Appleby, who they still knew as Teddy Hoover. In November 2004, the investigation led Kansas detectives to Connecticut, where Appleby was living. Connecticut State Police discovered an outstanding arrest warrant for Appleby from 1998 and agreed to execute the warrant when Kansas detectives could be present. The purpose of this arrest was to give Kansas detectives an opportunity to question Appleby.

After Kansas detectives arrived in Connecticut, they worked with Connecticut officers to prepare and obtain search warrants that authorized a search of Appleby's house and the swabbing of Appleby's mouth for the purpose of obtaining a DNA sample. Then, Connecticut police arrested Appleby at his home and executed the residential search warrant.

While the search warrant was being executed, Appleby was transported to a nearby Connecticut police station by Connecticut Detective Daniel Jewiss. On the way, Appleby volunteered that after some "trouble" in his past, he had taken on the name of his childhood friend, Teddy Hoover, who had died in an accident.

At the police station, Detective Jewiss started processing Appleby on the Connecticut arrest warrant. During the book-in process, another detective from Connecticut's major crime unit executed the search warrant that allowed swabbing Appleby's inner mouth for purposes of DNA testing. As we will discuss in more detail as part of our analysis of the second issue, when served with the DNA search warrant Appleby asked if he could speak to an attorney regarding his right to refuse the swabbing and, at three other points during the book-in process, asked whether he would have a chance to talk to an attorney. Appleby was told he did not have a right to refuse the execution of the warrant allowing the DNA swabbing but was told he would have the opportunity to call an attorney.

After completing most of the book-in process, Detective Jewiss told Appleby that other detectives wanted to speak to him about "an unrelated matter" and asked if Appleby was willing to talk to them. Appleby agreed and was taken upstairs to an interrogation room where the Kansas detectives waited. The detectives asked Appleby if he would answer some questions about A.K.'s murder. Up to this point, Appleby had not been told that Kansas detectives were involved or that some of the warrants were related to the A.K. murder investigation.

Appleby told the Kansas detectives he wanted to speak with them and straighten out some details from the time Sergeant Hansen interviewed him at his home in Kansas City. After being Mirandized, Appleby told the Kansas detectives that while he lived in Kansas City he used the name Teddy Hoover and had a pool company named Hoover Pools. Appleby indicated that he moved to Texas shortly after his interview with Sergeant Hansen and went back to using his real name, Benjamin Appleby; then he moved to Connecticut.

The detectives repeatedly asked Appleby if he had been at the pool where A.K. died, but Appleby told them he had never been there. After approximately 1 hour, the detectives moved him to an adjoining interview room. The second room contained items from the police investigation, such as a time line of the investigation, A.K.'s photograph and obituary, an aerial photograph of the pool, a videotape, a notebook labeled with the name Teddy Hoover, and two additional notebooks labeled as crime scene and autopsy photographs. The detectives then confronted Appleby with the fact that an officer at the pool on the day of the murder had logged the presence of a man who gave the name Teddy Hoover and a telephone number. At that point, Appleby acknowledged he had been at the pool that day.

About 15 or 20 minutes later, Appleby admitted he had killed A.K. Appleby told the detectives A.K. was in the pump room when he arrived at the pool. Finding A.K. attractive, Appleby tried to "hit on her," but A.K. rejected his advances and tried to leave the pump room. Appleby stood in her way and tried to grab her breasts and her waist. A.K. pushed Appleby and then punched him. This angered Appleby, who "lost it" and, in his own words, "just beat the shit out of her."

Appleby described the ensuing struggle during which the two fell and Appleby hit A.K. twice in the back of the head, which rendered her unconscious. Then he straddled A.K. and removed her shorts and panties, intending to have sex with her. Appleby next stood up and found a first-aid kit stored in the pump room. From the kit, the defendant said he took a tube of ointment and used the ointment as a sexual lubricant, but he could not obtain an erection.

Appleby also admitted to strangling A.K., although he told the detectives he could not remember what he used. At one point, Appleby suggested he used the rope on the pool thermometer in the pump room. At other times he stated he did not remember strangling A.K.

In describing what happened next, Appleby stated that as he was leaving, he thought he heard A.K. breathing and ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • State v. Myers
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 2022
    ... ... in the leg and continuing to firethe aggravated battery elements were identical to some of the elements of attempted first-degree murder and thus the two convictions were multiplicitous. Myers cites State v. Appleby , 289 Kan. 1017, 221 P.3d 525 (2009), in support of his argument. But Appleby is distinguishable. There, the defendant was convicted of capital murder under K.S.A. 21-3439(a)(4) defined as the intentional and premeditated killing of the victim in the commission of attempted rape. Our Supreme ... ...
  • State v. Miller
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 28, 2011
    ... ... See State v. Dukes, 290 Kan. 485, 487, 231 P.3d 558 (2010) (de novo standard applies to review of legal basis of admission of evidence); State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 105455, 221 P.3d 525 (2009) (same); State v. Henderson, 284 Kan. 267, 276, 160 P.3d 776 (2007) (de novo standard applies to determination of whether the right of confrontation has been violated). Challenged Statements Miller identifies two lines of the SANE's testimony he ... ...
  • State v. Bernhardt
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • May 27, 2016
    ... ... State v. Horton , 300 Kan. 477, 491, 331 P.3d 752 (2014) (citing State v. Appleby , 289 Kan. 1017, 1059, 221 P.3d 525 [2009] ). 372 P.3d 1170 Although not entirely clear from Bernhardt's brief, it appears that he specifically questions whether the instruction as given was legally appropriate. 304 Kan. 470 Bernhardt first contends that PIK language helps to ensure due process ... ...
  • State v. Smith
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • December 21, 2012
    ... ... When making this determination, an appellate court is required to consider the instructions as a whole and [293 P.3d 681] not to isolate any one instruction. State v. Appleby, 289 Kan. 1017, 1059, 221 P.3d 525 (2009). Smith asserts that the accomplice witness instruction, directing the jury to consider Price's testimony with caution, created a negative inference regarding the testimony of others in this trial. In short, he complains that his jury would have understood ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...limiting instruction may have been given had defendant requested one, admission of the underlying report was not error. State v. Appleby , 221 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2009). Admission of the results of computer-generated population frequency values for DNA profiles which, for example, permit DNA exp......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...limiting instruction may have been given had defendant requested one, admission of the underlying report was not error. State v. Appleby , 221 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2009). Admission of the results of computer-generated population frequency values for DNA proiles which, for example, permit DNA expe......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...limiting instruction may have been given had defendant requested one, admission of the underlying report was not error. State v. Appleby , 221 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2009). Admission of the results of computer-generated population frequency values for DNA proiles which, for example, permit DNA expe......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2014 Contents
    • July 31, 2014
    ...limiting instruction may have been given had defendant requested one, admission of the underlying report was not error. State v. Appleby , 221 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2009). Admission of the results of computer-generated population frequency values for DNA profiles which, for example, permit DNA exp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT