State v. Dern
Citation | 362 P.3d 566 |
Decision Date | 25 November 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 106,406.,106,406. |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Justin George DERN, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Heather R. Cessna, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Sherri L. Schuck, county attorney, argued the cause, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, was on the brief for appellee.
Justin G. Dern appeals from two convictions of aggravated indecent liberties with a child and two convictions of aggravated criminal sodomy involving his 3–year–old twin daughters. The State's case rested largely on Dern's admissions to others, including law enforcement, that he had committed these offenses. This aspect of the case requires application of our long-standing common-law corpus delicti rule. In so doing, we clarify how the rule applies to crimes that produce no tangible harm or injury.
Dern advances six claims of reversible error: (1) the failure to suppress his confession to law enforcement, which he claims was involuntary; (2) the admission of evidence that he confessed to other, uncharged acts of sexual misconduct with his daughters; (3) the application of the invited error doctrine to affirm his aggravated criminal sodomy convictions on the basis of jury instructions that set out alternative means; (4) the lack of corroborating evidence under the common-law corpus delicti rule to support the two convictions involving one daughter; (5) the giving of the aggravated indecent liberties with a child instruction, which Dern claims presented the jury with alternative means; and (6) the giving of the reasonable doubt instruction, which Dern alleges improperly stated the burden of proof.
We affirm Dern's two convictions for aggravated indecent liberties with a child and the life sentences imposed for them. We reverse both aggravated criminal sodomy convictions because the jury was improperly instructed on alternative means of committing that crime without supporting evidence for each means presented to the jury, and the Court of Appeals panel erroneously applied the invited error doctrine to preserve those convictions.
The Court of Appeals aptly summarized the case facts, which were incorporated by reference into Dern's petition for review to this court. The panel found:
After Dern left the VA hospital, the State charged him with two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy and two counts of aggravated indecent liberties—one charge of each crime for each girl based on his conduct on July 29, 2010.
Before trial, the State filed a K.S.A. 60–455 motion to introduce as evidence Dern's admissions of prior sexual misconduct with C.D. and F.D., i.e., the three incidents prior to July 29, 2010, that he had described to his wife and others. The district court granted the State's motion. Dern moved to suppress his statement to law enforcement, arguing it was involuntary. The district court denied that motion.
Jami Dern, Dannefer, Lopez, and Woodworth all testified at trial to the details summarized above. C.D. and F.D. did not testify because the parties stipulated the girls were disqualified under K.S.A. 60–417. When the State rested its case, Dern moved for acquittal of both charges involving C.D. because of insufficient evidence under the common-law corpus delicti rule. The district court denied that motion.
Dern testified in his defense, recanting his admissions. He insisted on his innocence and said the only thing that happened the night the girls came into the bathroom while he was urinating was that he told them to get out and they did. He testified the only true thing was that the girls had seen his penis in a family restroom while out shopping. Dern explained he falsely confessed because he had been "hammered on" for 2 days. He pointed out he had denied all allegations until the Saturday night he met with his wife and Dannefer and confessed to them only after 2 hours of questioning so they would leave him alone. Dern said he was distressed and thought his wife would stay with him if he confessed.
Dern explained further that he confessed to the intake doctor at the VA hospital because his wife was there, and confessed to Lopez because he was still distraught, had an unstable state of mind, and was afraid he would lose his family. He said he had not thought through the consequences of telling a social worker. Finally, Dern said he made up a story for law enforcement because he was told he could get treatment and thought they just wanted to help him. He claimed he was willing to lie to save his family.
The jury convicted on all four counts. Dern received four life sentences with a mandatory minimum of 25 years, two running consecutively and two others concurrently.
The Court of Appeals affirmed all four convictions. Dern, 2013 WL 2395253, at *13.
Relevant to our review, the panel found Dern's confession voluntary and upheld the denial of his suppression motion. 2013 WL 2395253, at *5. It also held the evidence of his prior sexual misconduct was admissible under K.S.A.2014 Supp. 60–455 to prove his "criminal disposition." 2013 WL 2395253, at *8. It agreed the jury instruction improperly included alternative means of committing sodomy but declined to reverse those convictions under the invited error doctrine. 2013 WL 2395253, at *10. It held the instruction for committing aggravated indecent liberties with a child did not state alternative means. The panel further held there was adequate corroborating evidence of Dern's crimes against C.D. to satisfy the common-law corpus delicti doctrine. 2013 WL 2395253, at *11. And it held the jury was properly instructed on reasonable doubt. 2013 WL 2395253, at *12. Notably, Dern prevailed on a sentencing issue, and the State did not cross-petition for this court's review. 2013 WL 2395253, at *13. The State also did not cross-petition on the panel's holding that the jury instruction improperly included alternative means of committing sodomy.
Dern petitioned for review of the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McDaniel
...court's proposed jury instruction to risk application of the invited error doctrine.’ " 304 Kan. at 444, 372 P.3d 1147 (quoting State v. Dern , 303 Kan. 384, Syl. ¶ 4, 362 P.3d 566 [2015] ). McDaniel's case is similar.McDaniel does not challenge the trial court's use of the language he aske......
-
State v. Claerhout
...or distract from the central issues at trial.’ " State v. Perez, 306 Kan. 655, 671, 396 P.3d 78 (2017) (quoting State v. Dern, 303 Kan. 384, 395, 362 P.3d 566 [2015] ). Claerhout does not contend that admission of his prior DUI diversion agreement distracted from the central issues at trial......
-
State v. Guein
...the district court's factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. State v. Dern , 303 Kan. 384, 392, 362 P.3d 566 (2015). Substantial evidence means legal and relevant evidence that a reasonable person would find adequate to support a conclusio......
-
State v. Sanders
...to object, an appellate court can presume the district court found all facts necessary to support its judgment. See State v. Dern , 303 Kan. 384, 394, 362 P.3d 566 (2015). Remand is necessary only where the record does not support such a presumption and the lack of findings precludes meanin......