State v. Herbel
Decision Date | 05 April 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 103,558.,103,558. |
Citation | 296 Kan. 1101,299 P.3d 292 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Randy HERBEL, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court
1. A criminal defendant has a right under K.S.A. 22–3405(1), as well as the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to be present at every critical stage of a trial. This includes all times whenever the trial court communicates with the jury.
2. When a criminal defendant's constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the trial has been denied, the error is harmless only if the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., there is no reasonablepossibility that it contributed to the verdict.
3. Under the facts of this case, where both the constitutional and nonconstitutional error clearly arise from the very same acts and omissions, an appellate court begins with a harmlessness analysis of the constitutional error. If the constitutional error is reversible, an appellate court need not analyze whether the party benefiting from the error also met the lower standard for harmlessness under K.S.A. 60–261.
4. An appellate court generally reviews a district court's decision regarding control of its trial proceedings for abuse of discretion.
5. Generally, constitutional issues cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal unless: (1) The newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) consideration of the question is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent the denial of fundamental rights; or (3) the district court is right for the wrong reason.
6. On the record presented in this case, an argument that the district court violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser and therefore violated his FourteenthAmendment right to a fair trial cannot be considered for the first time on appeal.
7. K.S.A. 22–3414(3) establishes a preservation rule for jury instruction claims on appeal. It provides that no party may assign as error a district court's giving or failure to give a particular jury instruction, including a lesser included crime instruction, unless: (a) that party objects before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds for objection; or (b) the instruction or the failure to give the instruction is clearly erroneous. If an instruction is clearly erroneous, appellate review is not predicated upon an objection in the district court.
8. When a defendant does not object to a jury instruction at trial, that failure does not prevent appellate review if the error is clearly erroneous. To determine whether an instruction or a failure to give an instruction was clearly erroneous, the appellate court must first determine whether there was any error at all. To make that determination, the appellate court must consider whether the subject instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the entire record.
9. The district court did not commit error by instructing the jury that While not the preferred instruction, it was legally appropriate.
10. Supreme Court Rule 6.09 (2012 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 49) was not intended to be, nor should it be, used as yet another briefing opportunity. The appellate courts will not consider a Rule 6.09 letter, or any of its parts, that fails to comply with the rule.
Meryl Carver–Allmond, of Capital Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
Kristafer R. Ailslieger, deputy solicitor general, argued the cause, and Nicole Romine, assistant attorney general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
Randy Herbel appeals his Jessica's Law convictions for rape and aggravated indecent liberties with a child. His issues on appeal, and our accompanying holdings, are as follows:
1. Did the district court violate his constitutional and statutory rights when it replayed his recorded statement to a deliberating jury outside of his presence but in the courtroom? Yes, but harmless error.
2. Did the court err when it allowed the child victim to testify with a comfort person alongside her? Not preserved.
3. Was the court's jury instruction on reasonable doubt legally inappropriate? No.
Accordingly, we affirm Herbel's convictions.
On July 31, 2006, the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, (SRS) received two reports of child neglect involving S.C., a 5–year–old girl living in Hillsboro. The first reporter was anonymous and claimed that S.C. was covered in ringworm and was not receiving appropriate medical care. That source also reported that S.C.'s mother was having sex in front of her. The second reporter was her daycare provider, 40–year–old defendant Randy Herbel. He too reported that S.C.'s mother was not treating her for ringworm.
Wilma Mueller, an SRS social worker, began her investigation on August 3. According to her trial testimony, she met with S.C. and her mother in their house. Mueller observed that S.C. was covered in circular scabs. Mueller then met privately with S.C. and asked if her mother ever had friends visit. S.C. replied, “[Y]es, Jake, my mom's boyfriend, he has sex with my mom.” Mueller then asked, “[W]hat's sex?” and S.C. whispered, “[T]hat's what Randy does to me.” As Mueller further testified:
Mueller then terminated the interview, contacted local law enforcement, and set up a sexual assault exam at Via Christi Medical Center in Wichita for that same day—August 3. Hillsboro Police Chief Daniel Kinning transported S.C. and her mother to the medical center where nurse practitioner Kathy Gill–Hopple conducted the exam.
Gill–Hopple began by taking S.C.'s medical history. According to Gill–Hopple's testimony, S.C. again stated that while Herbel was putting ointment on her naked body for ringworm he covered her head with a towel. His pants were off and “he touched his penis to her pee-pee and to her butt hole.” When Gill–Hopple asked if it hurt, she replied that she was crying and that it hurt. Finally, Gill–Hopple asked S.C. if anything came out of Herbel's penis, and she replied, “[N]o, just juice, it was white.” S.C. identified the incidents as occurring on the two previous days—August 1 and August 2—and one other unknown date. The sexual assault exam showed no signs of injury, which Gill–Hopple did not find unusual.
The next day social worker Mueller recorded a forensic interview of S.C. The DVD of the video interview was later admitted into evidence and played to the jury during the State's case-in-chief. On the DVD, S.C. stated that Herbel touched her butt and pee-pee with his penis three times. She reiterated that one time she was lying on her back naked on Herbel's bed, and he covered her head with a towel before touching her with his penis. S.C. additionally told Mueller that while Herbel said that he used a finger to touch her, she knew that he lied and used his penis. She also stated that Herbel stuck his penis inside her butt.
On August 17, approximately 2 weeks after S.C. was interviewed by Mueller, Chief Kinning interviewed Herbel. Herbel generally denied the allegations but admitted that he bathed and treated S.C. for ringworm.
On September 28, Chief Kinning and KBI Agent Rick Atteberry recorded their interview of Herbel. The DVD of the video interview was later admitted into evidence and played to the jury during the State's case-in-chief. Herbel discussed with them two incidents involving S.C., one occurring on August 1 and the second on August 2.
Regarding the August 1 incident, Herbel stated that after he gave S.C. a bath he placed her naked on his bed and treated her ringworm with calamine lotion. He also rubbed Vaseline on and near her vagina to treat the ringworm and another rash. According to Herbel, he rubbed the Vaseline on her vagina until he got aroused and then he stopped.
Regarding the August 2 incident, Herbel stated that he gave S.C. a bath and then again placed her naked on a towel on his bed. He again treated her with calamine and Vaseline. According to Herbel, after he rubbed the Vaseline on S.C.'s vagina for about 30 seconds, he then covered her head with a towel and began to masturbate. He claimed he bumped her clitoris with his penis and she said “ouch.” He admitted that he “most likely” penetrated S.C. during the act and later admitted that he “probably” penetrated her.
During this same interview, Herbel also wrote and signed a statement paralleling most of his recorded one. The written statement was also admitted into evidence at trial during the State's case-in-chief.
The next day the State charged Herbel with one count of rape for the August 1 incident and one count of rape and one count of aggravated indecent liberties with a child for the August 2 incident. After several years of addressing Herbel's competency issues, the jury trial began in July 2009.
Included in the State's trial evidence was the brief testimony of now 8–year–old S.C. with her adoptive placement person on the witness stand beside her. S.C. testified that Herbel touched her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Castleberry
...the burden to establish the degree of prejudice necessary for reversal.’ 295 Kan. 506, Syl. ¶ 5 ; see also State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1121, 299 P.3d 292 (2013).” State v. Cruz, 297 Kan. 1048, 1066–67, 307 P.3d 199 (2013).In this case, the second step in the analysis includes the additi......
-
State v. Shockley
...continuance other than simply: the trial was continued. We presume, as we must, that the defendant was absent. State v. Herbel , 296 Kan. 1101, 1107-08, 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (court will presume defendant not present when record does not affirmatively reflect presence). But we still have no i......
-
State v. Dupree
...subject instruction was legally and factually appropriate, employing an unlimited review of the entire record.’ ” State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1121, 299 P.3d 292 (2013) (quoting Williams, 295 Kan. 506, Syl. ¶ 4, 286 P.3d 195 ); see also State v. Plummer, 295 Kan. 156, 160–63, 283 P.3d 20......
-
State v. King, 99,479.
...Moreover, the holding in Burns is not only inconsistent with Coyote it is inconsistent with the recent decision of State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 299 P.3d 292 (2013). In Herbel, as in Coyote, we applied K.S.A. 22–3420(3), which provides: “(3) After the jury has retired for deliberation, if......
-
Appellate Decisions
...in refusing to sever trial from that of codefendant. Warren's reasonable doubt jury instruction claim was defeated by State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (2013), which rejected the same argument. Cumulative error doctrine not applicable in this appeal. Warren's sentence was imposed in violation ......
-
Appellate Decisions
...was defeated by State v. Brown, 295 Kan. 181 (2012). Claim regarding reasonable doubt instruction was defeated by State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101 (2013). CONCURRENCE and DISSENT (Biles, J.): This Court has not previously adopted or applied "trustworthiness" standard embraced by majority. Doe......