State v. Holland
| Decision Date | 02 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 56801,56801 |
| Citation | 236 Kan. 840,696 P.2d 401 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Rory C. HOLLAND, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether or not error has been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State.
2. This court declines to entertain questions reserved by the State, the resolution of which would not provide helpful precedent to the bench and bar or which would merely require this court to repeat what we have already said in many earlier opinions.
Kyle G. Smith, Asst. Co. Atty., argued the cause, and Rodney H. Symmonds, Co. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief, for appellant.
Neil Roach, of Roach & Mellinger, P.A., Emporia, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State of Kansas, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3602(b)(3), upon a question reserved by the prosecution during the criminal trial in this case. Defendant, Rory C. Holland, was charged and tried in Lyon County District Court with kidnapping, K.S.A. 21-3420, and aggravated assault, K.S.A. 21-3410. He was convicted of the lesser included offenses of unlawful restraint, K.S.A. 21-3424, and assault, K.S.A. 21-3408.
Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine to prevent the State from introducing evidence of defendant's prior convictions in Shawnee County of attempted murder and aggravated assault. The trial court sustained the motion. During trial, after it appeared that the primary issue was the intent of the defendant, the State sought to have the trial court reverse its earlier ruling and admit the evidence of the aggravated assault conviction. At no time did the State offer certified copies of journal entries showing the Shawnee County conviction or oral testimony concerning the background facts of those offenses. The State did offer, at the original argument on the motion in limine, copies of the reports of the investigating detectives in the Shawnee County matter.
It has long been the rule of this court that questions reserved by the State in a criminal prosecution will not be entertained on appeal merely to demonstrate whether or not error has been committed by the trial court in its rulings adverse to the State. State v. Crozier, 225 Kan. 120, 123, 587 P.2d 331 (1978); State v. V.F.W. Post No. 3722, 215 Kan. 693, 695, 527 P.2d 1020 (1974); State v. Chittenden, 212 Kan. 178, Syl. p 1, 510 P.2d 152 (1973); State v. Kopf, 211 Kan. 848, 508 P.2d 847 (1973); State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324, Syl. pp 1 and 2, 436 P.2d 377 (1968). As we noted in Glaze, appeals on questions reserved by the State have generally been accepted where they involve questions of statewide interest important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law. The decisions have been of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mountjoy
...the State. State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825, 826, 740 P.2d 611 (1987); State v. Willcox, 240 Kan. 310, Syl. p 1, 729 P.2d 451 (1986); State v. Holland, 236 Kan. 840, Syl. p 1, 696 P.2d 401 (1985); State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324, Syl. p 1, 436 P.2d 377 (1968). We have uniformly declined to entertai......
-
State v. Berreth
...the State. State v. Adee, 241 Kan. 825, 826, 740 P.2d 611 (1987); State v. Willcox, 240 Kan. 310, Syl. ¶ 1, 729 P.2d 451 (1986); State v. Holland, 236 Kan. 840, Syl. ¶ 1, 696 P.2d 401 (1985); State v. Glaze, 200 Kan. 324, Syl. ¶ 1, 436 P.2d 377 (1968). We have uniformly declined to entertai......
-
State v. Shively, 77,100.
...235 Kan. 468, 471, 680 P.2d 288 (1984); Johnson v. Johnson, 11 Kan. App.2d 317, 319-320, 721 P.2d 290 (1986); see also State v. Holland, 236 Kan. 840, 696 P.2d 401 (1985) (declining jurisdiction where resolution of issue would merely succeed in repeating the principles set forth in earlier ......
-
State v. Hodges
...of an issue asserted as a question reserved is much more likely where the issue is a new one before the courts. State v. Holland, 236 Kan. 840, 841, 696 P.2d 401 (1985). The issue here is whether the prosecution in a homicide trial may introduce expert testimony which is contrary to the bat......