State v. Cadle
| Decision Date | 26 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 111,369. |
| Citation | 353 P.3d 469 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Christopher CADLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Rick Kittel, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Daniel D. Gilligan, assistant district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before PIERRON, P.J., BUSER and POWELL, JJ.
Christopher Cadle appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Cadle challenges not only the method by which the trial court addressed the jury's questions but the accuracy of the response as well. He also raises his speedy trial rights and challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm Cadle's convictions.
Judy Davis was the manager at the Hutchinson Hobby Lobby in March 2010 during Cadle's employment at the store. Davis testified at the preliminary hearing, but unfortunately she had passed away by the time Cadle's trial occurred. The trial court allowed the court reporter to read Davis' preliminary hearing testimony to the jury. Davis explained Hobby Lobby's policy of searching employees' lockers on a random day of the month. She said it is mainly to search for store merchandise and that they search all of the employee lockers. Davis testified that Cadle's locker had a combination lock on it and they opened the lock by using the master list of combinations. In Cadle's locker, they found a box full of what appeared to be drug items. She was informed by her corporate office to report the box to the police. She testified that Cadle had been terminated by that time because he had not shown up to work for 3 days.
At the time of the incident, David Freerks had being working as a comanager at the Hobby Lobby for approximately 1 year. He explained that Hobby Lobby has a policy for random searches of employees' lockers. Freerks testified that Davis had shown him the box she found during a search of Cadle's employee locker. They called the police. Freerks testified Cadle had not shown up for work for a while and he was terminated as a result of the items found in his locker.
Dustin Loepp, a detective with the Hutchinson Police Department, responded to the call from Hobby Lobby. Freerks showed him the box marked “Chris C's box” and explained that Davis had found the box during a search of Cadle's locker. In the box, Loepp found glass test tubes, a torch-type lighter, bobby pins, pieces of plastic straws with the ends melted together, a plastic bottle with tubes coming out of it, and black electrical tape. Loepp had the glass tubes and straws tested for illegal drugs. Cynthia Wood from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation testified the items she received from Loepp tested positive for methamphetamine.
In his defense, Cadle called Samuel Courier, a fellow Hobby Lobby employee, to testify about the high traffic area around the employee lockers. Courier testified that family members of employees would frequently be in the locker area and it was not difficult to get the manager's log of the combinations. Cadle's wife Lindsay also testified that family members would regularly be in the area around the employee lockers. Lindsay said that Cadle did not have a combination lock on his locker most of the time.
The State originally charged Cadle in April 2010 with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. In July 2011, the State filed a journal entry of dismissal without prejudice due to the inability to get the case to trial because of Davis' failing health. The same charges were refiled against Cadle on October 12, 2011. Davis was able to testify at the preliminary hearing on February 1, 2012, but she passed away before the case went to trial. However, in July 2012, the trial court granted Cadle's motion to suppress the evidence seized from his locker because the State had not presented any evidence concerning the lawful nature of the search. See State v. Cadle, No. 108,402, 2013 WL 1149772, at * 2–3 (Kan.App.2013) (unpublished opinion). After the State filed an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held the court had erroneously shifted the burden to the State because Cadle had never met his burden of proving the search was unlawful in the first place under K.S.A. 22–3216. 2013 WL 1149772, at *5.
Cadle finally had a trial on October 29, 2013. After the jury got the case, it came back with a single question: “Can we see the box.” Without objection from either party, the trial court sent a written response back to the jury room stating, “No, the box was not admitted into evidence.” The jury convicted Cadle as charged and the court sentenced him to an underlying controlling prison term of 13 months' incarceration and granted a probationary term of 18 months' mandatory drug treatment. Cadle appeals.
Cadle first argues the trial court violated various statutory and constitutional rights by not answering the jury's questions in open court, by sending a written communication to the jury room, and by providing the jury with an erroneous answer because the box in question had actually been admitted into evidence. Cadle also argues a violation of his due process rights occurred when the jury was denied access to evidence that was admitted at trial.
As the State points out, Cadle's statutory argument pursuant to K .S.A. 22–3420(3) was rendered meritless by the legislature's 2014 amendments made to that statute. See L.2014, ch. 102, sec. 7. The legislature also clearly provided for the retroactive application of the amendments in K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3420(f) : “The amendments to this section by this act establish a procedural rule, and as such shall be construed and applied retroactively.” The amendments to K .S.A. 22–3420 provide that the court shall respond to jury questions either “in open court or in writing. ” (Emphasis added.) K.S.A.2014 Supp. 22–3420(d). Thus, we find no statutory violation. See State v. Roland, No. 109,624, 2015 WL 326410, at *11 (Kan.App.2015) (unpublished opinion); State v. Alvarez, No. 110,710, 2014 WL 7566066, at *8 (Kan.App.2014) (unpublished opinion).
We have unlimited review over Cadle's alleged constitutional violations. See State v. Hilt, 299 Kan. 176, 200, 202, 322 P.3d 367 (2014). Though Cadle did not object to the court's procedure for answering the jury's question as required by State v. Coman, 294 Kan. 84, 89, 273 P.3d 701 (2012), we will still consider it without the defendant having preserved the issue for appeal. See State v. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339, 354–55, 299 Kan. 339, 323 P.3d 853 (2014) ().
Initially, we must address Cadle's argument that his due process rights were violated because the trial court denied the jury the opportunity to examine a piece of evidence admitted at trial. Pursuant to K.S.A. 22–3420(3), the jury may, after retiring for deliberations, request information as to any part of the law or evidence arising in the case. “The important consideration is that the jury be properly instructed on the essential issues presented at the trial, and this is particularly true in a criminal proceeding when the question presented by the jury involves the basic elements of the criminal offense on which the defendant is being tried.” State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 985–86, 880 P.2d 1244 (1994). A trial court is vested with a great amount of discretion in answering jury questions. State v. Bandt, 219 Kan. 816, 824, 549 P.2d 936 (1976).
Cadle claims the box found in his locker was admitted into evidence. The record is somewhat cloudy and the litigants' citation, or lack of citation, to the proper record does not help our review. When the prosecutor discussed the box with Detective Loepp at trial, the following transpired concerning the admission of the evidence:
In their appellate briefs, neither party directs us to the discussion between the prosecutor and the trial court at the end of the State's case-in-chief. After the jury left the room for the parties to discuss motions, the following transpired:
After the jury received the case, it came back with the following question: The following discussion occurred:
Cadle filed his appellate brief on September 11, 2014. In his brief, Cadle argues that Exhibit 6, “the box,” was clearly admitted into evidence and the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial