State v. Greiner
| Decision Date | 27 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 122,954 |
| Citation | 510 P.3d 14 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. William L. GREINER, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Rick Kittel, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Matt J. Maloney, assistant district attorney, Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before Gardner, P.J., Hill and Hurst, JJ.
William L. Greiner appeals from his jury conviction of one count of intentional criminal threat stemming from an incident involving a police officer, an illegally parked trailer, and his desire to retrieve his gun. Greiner alleges his conviction should be reversed because: (1) the jury had insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress; and (3) the district court erred by including a jury instruction that limited his ability to assert a defense of self-defense. Only two of Greiner's claims are properly before this court, and this court finds sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could convict Greiner of intentional criminal threat and no error in the court's jury instructions. Greiner's conviction is affirmed.
On July 25, 2018, while addressing issues of graffiti and blight, Officer Charles Byers of the Wichita Police Department saw a detached trailer belonging to Greiner illegally parked on the street in violation of the city ordinance requiring trailers parked on the street to be attached to a vehicle. Officer Byers knocked on the door of the house the trailer was parked in front of, but when no one answered he left the scene to continue his work. Officer Byers returned about 90 minutes later and put a tow warning sticker on the trailer and then left the scene.
Shortly after leaving, Officer Byers received a call from the police station notifying Officer Byers that the owner of the trailer wanted to talk to him about the tow warning sticker. Officer Byers returned to the location of the trailer and his body video camera recorded the subsequent interaction between himself and Greiner, and is part of the evidence relied upon by the jury at trial and this court on appeal.
When Officer Byers returned to the location of the trailer, he was in a marked patrol vehicle, wearing a tan police uniform with his badge visible, and Greiner was in the street near his trailer sweeping debris from around the trailer. As Officer Byers tried to explain the tow warning sticker, Greiner became upset and argued that he understood the law to allow him to park his detached trailer in the street—and stated he had parked in this manner for several years. Officer Byers attempted to explain the applicable city ordinance and Greiner became more frustrated, raised his voice, and argued the trailer was legally parked on his property.
After a few minutes of fruitless attempts at explaining the law, Officer Byers walked toward his car to leave the scene and told Greiner the trailer would be towed in two days if it was not moved. Greiner was obviously upset and was still sweeping the area around the trailer and called Officer Byers an "asswipe." Officer Byers responded by walking back toward Greiner and saying "Okay, see now you're going to get a ticket from me." Officer Byers then walked from the street where the trailer was parked toward Greiner, who was now in his front yard walking toward his porch. Greiner pointed the broom he was holding toward Officer Byers and said, At this point, Greiner was holding a cordless phone in his hand and called 9-1-1, a recording of which is part of the record on appeal. Officer Byers then walked back to his patrol car to issue Greiner a ticket.
Once in his car, Officer Byers decided to forgo the ticket and instead write the violated ordinance number on a piece of paper for Greiner to review himself. Officer Byers exited his police car and walked toward Greiner, who was standing on his front porch on the phone with the 9-1-1 dispatcher, repeatedly yelling at Officer Byers "you are not allowed on my property." Officer Byers asked Greiner to calm down and tried to give him the piece of paper with the city ordinance number on it by approaching Greiner's porch with his hand holding the piece of paper extended toward Greiner. Officer Byers asked Greiner, "Do you want the ordinance or not, sir?" Greiner, talking into his phone, told the 9-1-1 operator "He's on my property right now" and then looked at Officer Byers and said "He's on my—I'm getting my gun" and then entered the doorway of his house.
Officer Byers immediately ran from Greiner's front yard to take cover behind his patrol car and radioed to dispatch, "put me out, put me out." Officer Byers remained behind his patrol car and communicated with dispatch that he was "behind cover" because Greiner said he was going to get a gun. Shortly thereafter Greiner returned to his porch without a weapon, and was arrested without incident.
The State charged Greiner with one count of criminal threat. Before Greiner's trial, he filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing all evidence obtained by Officer Byers, including Greiner's statement that he was getting his gun, should be suppressed because it arose from an unlawful, warrantless seizure of Greiner. Agreeing with the State, the district court denied the motion, relying on State v. Peterman , 42 Kan. App. 2d 761, 765-66, 216 P.3d 710 (2009), to find the exclusionary rule did not prohibit use of the evidence.
After a jury trial in which Greiner testified on his behalf, the jury found him guilty of intentional criminal threat and the district court sentenced him to 12 months of probation, with an underlying prison term of nine months. Greiner appealed.
On appeal, Greiner argues that (1) the State lacked sufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal threat; (2) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence; and (3) the district court erred in its jury instructions. This court will address each allegation in turn.
Greiner argues that the State lacked sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for criminal threat because it failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that he made a threat to commit violence, or that he intended to place another in fear. In an appeal challenging the sufficiency of the State's evidence, this court determines whether sufficient evidence exists such that a rational fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This court reviews the record to determine whether evidence exists that, when viewed in the light more favorable to the State, supports each element of the crime. State v. Chandler , 307 Kan. 657, 668, 414 P.3d 713 (2018) ; State v. Kettler , 229 Kan. 448, 471, 325 P3d 1075 (2014). The relied-upon evidence may be circumstantial, and this court may draw all logical inferences from the evidence that supports the conviction. Chandler , 307 Kan. at 669 ; State v. Jefferson , 297 Kan. 1151, 1167, 310 P.3d 331 (2013). In all instances, this court will uphold a conviction so long as "the essential elements of the charge are sustained by any competent evidence." State v. Van Pham , 234 Kan. 649, 668, 675 P.2d 848 (1984).
The district court instructed the jury that, in order to establish the charge of criminal threat, the State was required to prove:
This required the State to prove two things–that Greiner: 1) threatened to commit violence; and 2) intended to place Officer Byers in fear with his threat.
Greiner argues that his statement, "I'm getting my gun" was not a threat of violence—but merely a statement about going inside to get a gun. Greiner argues it was not a threat because he never said he was coming back outside with the gun, or that he intended to shoot Officer Byers with the gun. Greiner argues that while at the scene during the fractious interaction, Officer Byers falsely claimed to other officers that Greiner said "he was going to go inside and get a gun and come back out at me," and that Greiner "tried to come out and shoot me." Greiner claims that these statements by Officer Byers are what led the jury to believe Greiner threatened violence. However, at trial Officer Byers clearly testified that he never saw Greiner with, or holding, a gun and that Greiner never said he was coming back outside with the gun. Moreover, Greiner testified that he never retrieved a gun and he did not even own a gun. The jury had ample evidence that Greiner never said he was returning outside with a gun, that he never expressly stated he was going to shoot Officer Byers, and that he never displayed a gun to Officer Byers.
a. Greiner threatened to commit violence .
The first issue then, is whether the jury had sufficient evidence to prove that Greiner threatened to commit violence. A "threat" is "a communicated intent to inflict physical or other harm on any person or on property." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5111(ff) ; see State v. Stevenson , 59 Kan. App. 2d 49, 65, 478 P.3d 781 (2020). A person acts with intent to threaten "when it is such person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5202(h). A person's intent to threaten violence can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the threat. See e.g., State v. Johnson , 310 Kan. 835, 841, 450 P.3d 790 (2019) (); State v. Williams , 303 Kan. 750, 762-63, 368 P.3d 1065 (2016) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial