State v. Clements
| Decision Date | 11 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 66806,66806 |
| Citation | 843 P.2d 679,252 Kan. 86 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. John F. CLEMENTS, Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. When a motion in limine is denied, the moving party must object to the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal.
2. Appellate review of the admission of prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion or whether the trial court admitted clearly irrelevant evidence.
Linda M. Pointer, Sp. Appellate Defender, argued the cause, and Kathleen Levy, Sp. Appellate Defender, of Kansas Defender Project, Lawrence, and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, Topeka, were with her on the briefs for appellant.
Mike Ward, County Atty., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
This case concerns the admissibility of prior crimes evidence under K.S.A. 60-455 and the preservation of the admissibility issue on appeal.
John F. Clements, Jr., was found guilty of sexual battery (K.S.A. 21-3517) and aggravated criminal sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506[a]. We acquired jurisdiction through a transfer by the Court of Appeals under K.S.A. 20-3016.
The case at bar is Clements' third appeal to this court. See State v. Clements, 241 Kan. 77, 734 P.2d 1096 (1987) (reversed for improper admission of Clements' prior conviction of sodomy [Clements I ]; and State v. Clements, 244 Kan. 411, 770 P.2d 447 (1989) (reversed for improper admission of an expert's opinion as to characteristics of an individual who typically sexually abuses children [Clements II ]. The charges in the case at bar are based on incidents occurring after Clements I and II.
Our standard of review is abuse of discretion. State v. Blackmore, 249 Kan. 668, 670-71, 822 P.2d 49 (1991). We find no error and affirm.
In June 1989, Clements was working on electrical repairs at the home of D.W. and K.W. Seven children (including four foster children) lived in the home. Clements, who developed a friendly relationship with the family, was hired to work on other odd jobs at the house. The male children often were hired by Clements to assist him.
Clements and J.A., a 17-year-old boy and one of the four foster children, spent a day in June 1989 working together. J.A. testified: (1) He was taken to Clements' house where he played a computer game while Clements took a shower; (2) while sitting at the computer his back was massaged by Clements (J.A. had previously complained of back pain to Clements); (3) Clements moved his hands around to J.A.'s front and into J.A.'s pants; (4) J.A. grabbed Clements' hands and asked Clements to stop; (5) Clements then offered J.A. a ride to dinner, which J.A. accepted because he "was scared."
J.A. informed the police about what had happened. Charges were not filed until later.
The second incident involved C.B., a 15-year-old boy. In November 1989, Clements drove C.B. and his friends around town and bought them a 12-pack of beer. After finishing the beer, the group gathered in the basement of the home of C.B.'s girlfriend. According to C.B., Clements came up behind him and rubbed his back and shoulders and asked if he could "go lower." C.B. said, "No."
Clements also hired C.B. to help with odd jobs. C.B. assisted Clements in siding a vacant house. C.B.'s friend, H.J., also worked on the house. C.B. related that, after H.J. left the job site, Clements began rubbing C.B.'s back and asked to "go lower." C.B. testified that after he declined, Clements offered him $100 for a "hand job or blow job." C.B. accepted the offer. Clements orally copulated C.B. C.B. told his girlfriend and his foster parents about the incident. The foster parents took C.B. to the police. C.B.'s trial testimony differed from his initial story. The first time C.B. spoke with a police officer, C.B. indicated that Clements had knocked him out and performed both oral and anal sex.
The State charged Clements with sexual battery (the incident with J.A.), aggravated kidnapping (C.B.'s original story), and aggravated criminal sodomy (the incident with C.B.). The aggravated kidnapping charge was dismissed.
A search warrant was issued for Clements' residence. Among the items seized and admitted into evidence were baseball cards found in Clements' bedroom. A photograph of the cards in the place where they had been located by the police was also admitted into evidence.
Prior to trial, motions concerning the admissibility of the fruits of the residential search and of Clements' prior crimes were heard by the trial court. Clements filed a motion in limine to prevent the State from introducing evidence regarding both a 1982 Navy court martial and a 1989 Butler County conviction for aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, P.V.
The incident involving P.V. took place in May 1985. In September of 1985, Clements was charged with aggravated criminal sodomy. The 1985 charge resulted in several trials and two appeals. After three jury trials (including one hung jury) and two conviction reversals by this court, Clements I and II, Clements pled no contest to the reduced charge of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child. The chronology of the trials, appeals, and plea was before the jury in the case at bar by stipulation (orally from the bench by the trial judge and in writing from the parties).
The trial judge admitted the June 1989 Butler County conviction under K.S.A. 60-455 to prove intent as to sexual battery and to prove plan as to both sexual battery and aggravated criminal sodomy. A ruling on admission of the items recovered during the residential search was reserved until the attempted introduction of each item at trial.
Clements' 1989 conviction was introduced under K.S.A. 60-455 through the testimony of P.V. P.V. testified that he sometimes saw Clements at a baseball card shop and that Clements had performed oral sex on him. P.V. was 11 years old at the time. (P.V.'s involvement with Clements is set out in Clements I and II.) No contemporaneous objection was made at trial to P.V.'s testimony. Following the State's direct examination of P.V. and the luncheon recess, defense counsel moved to strike P.V.'s testimony. The motion was denied.
Clements' counsel did not make a K.S.A. 60-404 contemporaneous objection to P.V.'s testimony.
Defense counsel did move to strike the testimony. However, State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 739, 793 P.2d 737 (1990). See also State v. Jordan, 250 Kan. 180, 192, 825 P.2d 157 (1992) ().
The trial court in the case at bar instructed the jury regarding the limited purpose of the K.S.A. 60-455 evidence just prior to P.V.'s testimony and again in the written instructions at the close of trial. Even if the K.S.A. 60-455 prior crimes issue had been properly before us, we would not find an abuse of discretion in admitting the testimony of P.V. for the limited purposes of showing intent and plan.
The admission of evidence of prior crimes is governed by K.S.A. 60-455.
We have consistently stated that appellate review of the admission of prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wells
...the Dotson court suggests the evidence of other crimes is admissible on intent. 256 Kan. at 413, 886 P.2d 356 (citing State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 843 P.2d 679 [1992]). But if, as in Dotson, the defendant admits the conduct and offers no explanation, and no inference can be drawn regardi......
-
State v. Prine
...No. 91,708, unpublished Court of Appeals opinion filed December 2, 2005, rev. denied 281 Kan. 1379 (2006); cf. State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 89-90, 843 P.2d 679 (1992) (intent in issue when defendant admitted act; question for trial whether defendant's physical contact with complaining wi......
-
State v. Hart
...9 (5th ed. 2009) (An objection should be made as soon as it is apparent as to the admissibility of the evidence); State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 88-89, 843 P.2d 679 (1992) (holding that failure to make timely objection to testimony will not be salvaged by later motion to strike the testimo......
-
State v. Littrice
...object to the evidence at trial to preserve the issue on appeal. State v. Synoracki, 253 Kan. 59, Syl. p 8, 853 P.2d 24 (1993); State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, Syl. p 1, 843 P.2d 679 (1992); and State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, Syl. p 6, 834 P.2d 342 (1992). The same rule applies when a trial......
-
Kansas State Court Appellate Standards of Review an Understanding Unblinded
...252 Kan. 806, 817, 850 P.2d 809 (1993). [FN100]. State v. Thomas, 252 Kan. 564, 572, 847 P.2d 1219 (1993). [FN101]. State v. Clements, 252 Kan. 86, 89, 843 P.2d 679 (1992). [FN102]. State v. Blackburn, 251 Kan. 787, 792, 840 P.2d 497 (1992). [FN103]. State v. Cooper, 252 Kan. 340, 348, 845 ......