State v. Galloway, 55370
Decision Date | 24 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 55370,55370 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Sherman L. GALLOWAY, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under K.S.A. 22-3603, pretrial orders of a district court which exclude State's evidence so as substantially to impair the State's ability to prosecute the case may be appealed by the State by interlocutory appeal. Following State v. Newman, 680 P.2d 257 (this day decided).
2. Where jurisdiction of an interlocutory appeal in a criminal case is challenged on the basis the appealed from orders are temporary rather than final in nature, the orders are reviewed and held to be final orders.
3. Evidence of an Identi-Kit composite prepared at the direction of an eyewitness is not inadmissible hearsay. Rather than substantive evidence, it is evidence of an extrajudicial identification. Testimony of the identifying witness concerning the composite is admissible in corroboration of testimony of the same witness identifying the accused at trial.
4. Where a photo lineup identification is challenged on the grounds of improper police procedures, the totality of the circumstances is analyzed to determine whether an identification is so impermissibly suggestive that it gives rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.
5. The statutory marital privilege between husband and wife does not extend to all observations of the acts of one spouse by the other. The marital privilege is limited to spoken or written statements or nonverbal signs or gestures seeking to transmit information from one spouse to another. Following State v. Newman, 680 P.2d 257 (this day decided).
6. In an interlocutory appeal by the State in a criminal action from pretrial orders excluding evidence, the record is examined and it is held: (1) the two challenges to this court's jurisdiction are without merit; and (2) the district court erred in excluding evidence of (a) the composite, (b) the extrajudicial photographic lineup identification, (c) observations by the accused's wife as to certain keys.
Robin Fowler, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Mary D. Prewitt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jerry L. Harper, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were on the briefs, for appellant.
Jeffrey O. Heeb, Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal by the State pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603 from an order of the district court suppressing and excluding evidence. The Court of Appeals dismissed this interlocutory appeal on the basis the order appealed from was not final. This court granted the State's petition for review.
Defendant Sherman L. Galloway is charged with rape (K.S.A. 21-3502); aggravated sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506); aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427); and kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-3420). This is not the first time this case has been before this court on an interlocutory appeal by the State. (State v. Galloway, 232 Kan. 87, 652 P.2d 673 [1982], hereinafter referred to as Galloway I.)
The complex factual situation underlying this case was stated in Galloway I as follows:
232 Kan. at 87-89, 652 P.2d 673.
This court in Galloway I reversed the district court's suppression of the seized keys and the Court of Appeal's affirmance thereof and remanded the case for further proceedings. The issue in Galloway I focused upon the State's right to seize the ring of keys during the execution of the search warrant. As indicated in the statement of facts, the charges relative to victims Ms. R and Ms. G, while contained in one complaint, had been severed. Defendant has been convicted of the charges relative to victim Ms. R and the conviction has been affirmed by this court in an unpublished opinion. (State v. Galloway, 661 P.2d 401 (1983). The issues herein solely relate to the charges pending relative to victim Ms. G.
After the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings, certain evidentiary motions were heard. The district court sustained defendant's motions: (1) to suppress a composite photograph of a completed "Identi-Kit"; and (2) the photographic lineup identification of the defendant by the victim. Additionally, the district court held, on the State's motion in limine, the State would not be permitted to introduce any evidence relative to observation of the keys by defendant's wife. (Whether these rulings were temporary or final is one of the issues on appeal and the facts relative thereto will be set forth in detail in the discussion of that issue.) The State then filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603 as to all three adverse rulings.
The first jurisdictional issue is whether the evidentiary rulings herein are the proper subjects for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3603. It should be noted the district court did not base any of the complained-of rulings on violation of defendant's constitutional rights. K.S.A. 22-3603 provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
Defendant, in reliance on State v. Boling, 5 Kan.App.2d 371, 617 P.2d 102 (1980), contends K.S.A. 22-3603 authorizes an interlocutory appeal by the State from orders of suppression only when the evidence is suppressed as having been obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The Court of Appeals, in Boling, held the statute did not authorize interlocutory appeals by the State from rulings excluding evidence predicated upon statutory rules of evidence.
The State argues the Court of Appeals' construction of K.S.A. 22-3603, as expressed in Boling, is too narrow and the statute authorizes interlocutory appeals in any situation where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Breazeale, 57747
...is so impermissibly suggestive that it gives rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification. State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70, 89, 680 P.2d 268 (1984); State v. Ponds, 227 Kan. 627, 629, 608 P.2d 946 (1980). Although the procedure employed in this case may have been un......
-
State v. Galloway
...by the State. See State v. Galloway, 232 Kan. 87, 652 P.2d 673 (1982) (hereinafter referred to as Galloway I ); State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70, 680 P.2d 268 (1984) (hereinafter referred to as Galloway II The facts are undisputed and were set forth in Galloway I as follows: " 'On May 12, 198......
-
State v. Hart, 15223
...2 An individual can therefore generally testify as to their spouse's possessions, Fowler, 617 P.2d at 854; State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70, 92, 680 P.2d 268, 285 (1984); and may specifically testify as to the possession of illegal drugs. United States v. Ferris, 719 F.2d 1405, 1408 (9th Turn......
-
State v. Sales
...guidance on the determination of what type of trial court rulings substantially impair the State's prosecution. In State v. Galloway, 235 Kan. 70, 680 P.2d 268 (1984), handed down the same day as Newman, the defendant was charged with rape. The victim's identification of the defendant was w......