State v. Hampton, 47522
| Decision Date | 07 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 47522,47522 |
| Citation | 215 Kan. 907,529 P.2d 127 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Willie HAMPTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. K.S.A. 60-455 defines the purposes for which evidence of similar crimes or civil wrongs may be considered and the trial court in its instructions should point out those elements listed in the statute as to which the evidence is relevant and can be considered.
2. Where evidence of a prior offense is not relevant to establish every element mentioned in the statute, the elements having no relevance to the crime charged should be omitted from the instruction.
3. In a prosecution for rape under K.S.A.1973 Supp. 21-3502(1)(a) evidence of similar offenses is admissible, under proper instructions, as being relevant to intent and plan of operation.
4. The record is examined in an action wherein the defendant was charged with and convicted of rape as defined in K.S.A.1973 Supp. 21-3502(1)(a) and for reasons set forth in the opinion it is held (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of other simialr offenses and (2) the trial court did not err in instructing the jury as to the purposes for which the evidence might be considered.
Jim D. Mills, Garden City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Harrison Smith, County Atty., argued the cause, and Vern Miller, Atty. Gen., was with hom on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Willie Hampton, from a conviction of rape in violation of K.S.A.1973 Supp. 21-3502(1)(a). The offense is alleged to have occurred September 8, 1973. Mr. Hampton was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than forty years pursuant to the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act, K.S.A.1973 Supp. 21-4504.
In view of the nature of the points presented on appeal we will not delve deeply into the facts surrounding the offense, but a brief re sume is in order.
The incident occurred shortly after midnight at the Ale House where both the complaining witness and the defendant were employed. The victim, who shall be nameless, had closed the tavern after all the customers had left and was proceeding to leave when accosted by Mr. Hampton, who had stayed behind. Without relating details, we may say that during the episode which followed, according to the complainant's testimony, the defendant forcibly threw her down on the floor, strangled her with his hands and held a sharp object against her throat, an object which she took to be a knife. After he had attained his objective through a combination of force and fear, the defendant proposed that the victim extend him favors in the future for which he would pay.
The errors alleged center upon the testimony of three women concerning sexual assaults upon them by defendant. The defendant contends their testimony was inadmissible missible under that portion of K.S.A. 60-455 which recites that evidence that a person has committed a crime on a specified occasion is inadmissible to prove his disposition to commit crime as a basis for inferring that he committed another crime on another occasion. He contends further that the trial court misdirected the jury with respect to the testimony. Before proceeding to the merits of these contentions, we must recount the substance of the challenged evidence.
Again, we shall not go into the explicit details of the defendant's past conduct as related by the other women, nor shall we reveal their names. Two of the incidents occurred in 1971, when the defendant is said to have assaulted two of the witnesses on separate occasions and attempted, unsuccessfully to have sexual intercourse with each of them. Although the victims were eventually able to make their escape, their testimony was to the effect that the defendant choked or strangled them in his efforts to have intercourse. Shortly after these two incidents occurred Mr. Hampton appears to have been sentenced to prison on a charge of attempted rape.
The third incident occurred August 29, 1973, less than a month before the present offense is alleged to have taken place. On this occasion the defendant was successful in his designs, and the assault culminated in sexual intercourse. During this episode, also, the defendant choked or strangled his victim and, after completion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gezzi v. State
...character." Sex cases, the court noted, are like signature crimes; thus, prior evidence would be highly relevant.); State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 529 P.2d 127 (1974) (intent, plan of operation); State v. Walker, 540 So.2d 1059 (La.App.1989) (evidence admissible to prove res gestae if prio......
-
State v. Prine
...that defendant raped them "`under somewhat similar circumstances'" to that of victim admissible to show plan]; State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 909-10, 529 P.2d 127 [1974] [prior crimes evidence bearing "marked similarity" admissible]). If a defendant's past bad acts are sufficiently similar......
-
State v. Hatcher
...So.2d 311, writ denied, 295 Ala. 401, 328 So.2d 321 (1976); People v. Oliphant, 399 Mich. 472, 250 N.W.2d 443 (1976); State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 529 P.2d 127 (1974); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959); but their reasons are not persuasive. Furthermore, in the instant case in w......
-
People v. Oliphant
...13 (Fla.1973). Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). State v. Gonzales, 217 Kan. 159, 535 P.2d 988 (1975). State v. Hampton, 215 Kan. 907, 529 P.2d 127 (1974). See also cases compiled in 77 A.L.R.2d 841--908.9 Before the jury heard the testimony of witnesses 'A', 'B', and 'C', the co......