State v. Canaan
| Decision Date | 24 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 76921,76921 |
| Citation | 265 Kan. 835,964 P.2d 681 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Marvin L. CANAAN, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless a search falls within one of a few exceptions, a warrantless search is per se unreasonable.
2. Upon the hearing of a motion to suppress evidence, the State bears the burden of proving to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure.
3. The "exclusionary rule" prohibits the admission of the "fruits" of illegally seized evidence, i.e., any information, object, or testimony uncovered or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the illegally seized evidence or any leads obtained therefrom.
4. An inventory search of a motor vehicle is a warrantless search and is not valid unless the police first have lawful custody of the vehicle.
5. The police may legally impound a vehicle if authorized by statute or if there are reasonable grounds for impoundment.
6. One circumstance that constitutes reasonable grounds for impoundment of a vehicle is where the police have an unattended-to motor vehicle from the scene of an accident when the driver is physically or mentally incapable of deciding upon steps to be taken to deal with his or her property, as in the case of the intoxicated, mentally incapacitated, or seriously injured driver.
7. The scope of cross-examination is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent a clear showing of abuse, the exercise of that discretion will not constitute prejudicial error.
8. Cross-examination may be permitted into matters which were the subject of direct examination. Where general subject matter has been opened up on direct examination, cross-examination may go to any phase of the subject matter and is not restricted to identical details developed or specific facts gone into on direct examination. Questions asked on cross-examination must be responsive to testimony given on direct examination, or material and relevant thereto.
9. Under the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement, a law enforcement official can seize evidence of a crime if (1) the initial intrusion which afforded authorities the plain view is lawful; (2) the discovery of the evidence is inadvertent; and (3) the incriminating character of the article is immediately apparent to searching authorities.
10. The Frye test requires that before expert scientific opinion may be received into evidence, the basis of that opinion must be shown to be generally accepted as reliable within the expert's particular scientific field. The State has the burden of satisfying the Frye test by proving the reliability of the underlying scientific theory upon which scientific evidence is based.
11. The scientific technique upon which the luminol test for the presence of blood is based has been generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.
12. Whether an expert or lay witness is qualified to testify as to his or her opinion lies within the discretion of the trial court, and the district court will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.
13. The Miranda rule requires that a person must be warned of certain rights prior to any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the person is taken into custody or deprived of his or her freedom in any significant way.
14. "Custody" means the restraint of a person pursuant to an arrest or the order of a court or magistrate. "Detention" means the temporary restraint of a person by a law enforcement officer.
Steven R. McConnell, Deputy Appellate Defender, argued the cause, and Mary Curtis, Assistant Appellate Defender, and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, were on the brief, for Appellant.
Steven J. Obermeier, Assistant District Attorney, argued the cause, and Paul J. Morrison, District Attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, were with him on the brief, for Appellee.
Defendant Marvin Canaan was convicted of premeditated murder, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Defendant appeals, claiming the district court failed to: (1) suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search; (2) suppress defendant's statements made in the emergency room; (3) conduct a Frye hearing as to the admissibility of luminol testing; and (4) permit cross-examination of a prosecution witness.
FACTS:
Sometime in the morning hours of October 20, 1994, Michael Kirkpatrick was murdered. The evening before, he was observed at a bar with Canaan. During the investigation, the victim's neighbor, Jerry Staley, informed police that Canaan had been at the victim's house the evening before and had been driving a maroon Oldsmobile. Because the victim had been with Canaan, Detective Harold Hughes of the Johnson County Sheriff's office and an officer from the Gardner Police Department went to Canaan's home to ask what Canaan knew of the murder. The officers observed a maroon Oldsmobile at Canaan's home.
Canaan's wife informed Hughes that her husband would be home about 1 p.m. and that he was driving a Dodge Ramcharger pickup truck. In response to Hughes' questions, Canaan's wife said that Canaan had been wearing a white pullover shirt and burgundy jogging pants that evening. She told Hughes that the pants Canaan wore had been washed and dried but the shirt was in the washer. At the officer's request, she removed the shirt from the washing machine and gave it to him.
After leaving Canaan's home, the officers were informed that the defendant's pickup was parked near the pharmacy in Gardner, Kansas. The officers proceeded to the pharmacy, parked, and waited for Canaan to appear.
Less than 5 minutes later, Canaan returned to the pickup and drove west on U.S. Highway 56. The officers believed Canaan was driving home from the pharmacy. When he turned on 183rd Street in Gardner, the officers realized Canaan was not going home. The officers followed. On the gravel road Canaan sped up to approximately 55 mph. The speed limit was 35 mph.
After Canaan had accelerated to 55 mph, the officers activated their lights and siren and Canaan stopped. When Hughes approached, Canaan observed the officer's identification and accelerated away. The chase reached speeds up to 75 mph.
After running three stop signs, Canaan's pickup crashed into a tree. Detective Hughes called for emergency medical assistance, approached the wrecked pickup, and found Canaan lying on the passenger side of the truck unconscious. Hughes did not open the truck door. Canaan was removed from the truck and placed on a stretcher by EMS attendants.
Captain Jones (Johnson County) arrived and began to investigate the scene of the crash. He observed a gray wallet lying on the ground just outside the pickup's passenger door. To identify the driver, Jones removed the driver's license. It was Canaan's license. Jones then noticed a black wallet on the floorboard of the truck. Jones examined this wallet and found it contained the murder victim's driver's license. Jones replaced the victim's license and wallet where he had found it.
Later that day, Detective Hughes obtained a warrant to search Canaan's pickup for
"hair, blood, fibers, pair tennis shoes, blue jacket, and any other clothing which exhibits damage to fabric which could have been caused by cutting or has tissues or blood on it, knives or sharp edged instruments, U.S. currency, illegal narcotics, evidence written or otherwise indicating illegal narcotics transactions, and wallet." (Emphasis added.)
At the hospital, Detective Scott Atwell was assigned to stay with Canaan until he was released. Atwell, who was not aware of Canaan's connection to the murder investigation, was to ascertain where Canaan was going, if he was released from the hospital.
While at the hospital, Atwell received a telephone call from a superior officer telling him to photograph Canaan's injuries. Atwell believed, and he told Canaan, that the pictures were for the accident investigation. Canaan agreed to be photographed. While the officer photographed the wounds, Canaan told Atwell that he (Canaan) could verify that he did not have the wounds prior to the accident.
Later, Canaan asked Atwell if he knew where his wallet and clothing were. Atwell told Canaan there was a black wallet with a velcro closure on the floorboard of the truck. Canaan said the black wallet was not his. Atwell then asked whose wallet Canaan thought it was. Canaan did not respond.
Canaan also informed Atwell that he did not remember the accident. In response, Atwell asked why Canaan did not stop. Canaan responded that there was cocaine in the pickup that belonged to someone else.
Upon being taken to a regular hospital room, Canaan telephoned his wife. After this conversation, Canaan told Atwell that he now understood why the officers wanted to talk to him. Detective Atwell asked, "Why?" Canaan responded that the officer wanted to ask him about a murder in Edgerton.
During the investigation, the police requested John Wilson of the Regional Crime Lab to conduct luminol tests. Wilson tested Canaan's Oldsmobile and house.
Canaan filed three separate motions to suppress evidence. Prior to trial, Canaan first moved to suppress the introduction of the black wallet found in the pickup and its contents, and testimony as to the wallet. Canaan asserted that there was no probable cause for the officers to stop him because no warrant had been issued for his arrest and there was no reasonable articulable suspicion that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. The district court ruled:
"With respect to the defendant's Motion to Suppress regarding the stop, the Court would find that Detective Hughes had a reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's vehicle; that the observation of the wallet by Captain Jones and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warrior
...507 P.2d 233 (1973), disapproved in part on other grounds by State v. Murry, 271 Kan. 223, 21 P.3d 528 (2001); see State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 847, 964 P.2d 681 (1998) (defendant was not in custody where he was alone for significant periods of time and was not arrested at hospital; purpo......
-
Taylor v. Steele
...presumptive blood tests are admissible as long as the test is accurately described so it is helpful to the jury. SeeState v. Canaan , 265 Kan. 835, 964 P.2d 681, 694 (1998) ; State v. Stenson , 132 Wash.2d 668, 940 P.2d 1239, 1264-65 (1997). If the jury is fully informed, the fact that the ......
-
State v. Ibarra
...constitutionally prohibited. "Unless a search falls within one of a few exceptions, a warrantless search is per se unreasonable." State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, Syl. ¶ 1, 964 P.2d 681 (1998). A warrantless search is permissible where there is probable cause for the search and exigent circum......
-
State v. Davis
...purports to do: presumptively indicate the presence of blood. Dodd v. State, 2004 OK CR 31, 100 P.3d 1017, ¶ 62; State v. Canaan (1998), 265 Kan. 835, 964 P.2d 681, paragraph 11 of the syllabus (use of Luminol universally accepted as a presumptive test for blood); People v. Cumbee (2006), 3......
-
Paradigm Shifts in Search and Suppression Law
...omitted). [79] Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 484; State v. Bartlett, 27 Kan. App. 2d 143, 150, 999 P.2d 274 (2000). [80] State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 840, 964 P.2d 681 (1998). [81] United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 916, 922, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984). [82] Leon, 468 U.S. at 922,......
-
An Analysis of the Admissibility of Expert Opinion Testimony in Kansas State Courts After Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals
...509 U.S. at 592. 6. Armstrong v. City of Wichita, 21 Kan. App. 2d 750, 907 P.2d 923 (1995) (rejecting Daubert); see also State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835, 848, 964 P.2d 681 (1998) (confirming the Frye test applies); State v. Lowry, 163 Kan. 622, 629, 185 P.2d 147 (1947) (adopting the Frye test......
-
Appellate Decisions
...contention that the search of Evan's purse and wallet fits a well-delineated exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Canaan, 265 Kan. 835 (1998), which relied on plain view and inventory search exceptions to the warrant requirement, did not create a new exception allowing a search si......