State v. Hooks

• Decision Date: 30 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. 66872,66872
• Citation: 251 Kan. 755,840 P.2d 483
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Rodney J. HOOKS, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 483

840 P.2d 483

251 Kan. 755

STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Rodney J. HOOKS, Appellant.

No. 66872.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Oct. 30, 1992.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In determining whether or not a juvenile should be prosecuted as an adult pursuant to K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38-1636, the court is required to consider the eight factors set forth in the statute, but the court is not required to make findings based on substantial competent evidence adverse to the juvenile as to each of the eight factors as a prerequisite to authorizing prosecution as an adult. Insufficiency of the evidence as to one or more of the factors is not in and of itself determinative of the issue.

2. Under K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38-1636, if a court authorizes prosecution of a 14- or 15-year-old juvenile as an adult, such authorization includes all offenses charged, not just the class A or B felony charge or charges necessary for the application of the statute.

3. The trial court's determination that a juvenile's confession was freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given despite the juvenile having been held at the police station for eight hours under less than desirable conditions is held to be supported by substantial competent evidence and will not be disturbed upon appellate review.

4. Evidence of defendant's and a co-perpetrator's gang membership is held to be relevant and its admission is held not to constitute an abuse of judicial discretion, all as is more fully set forth in the opinion.

Geary N. Gorup, Law Office of Geary N. Gorup, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant.

Rachelle Worrall Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause, and Nola Foulston, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were with her on the brief, for appellee.

McFARLAND, Justice:

Rodney J. Hooks appeals his jury trial convictions of first-degree murder (K.S.A.1991 Supp. 21-3401); aggravated battery (K.S.A. 21-3414); aggravated robbery (K.S.A. 21-3427); aggravated criminal sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506); attempted aggravated criminal sodomy (K.S.A.1991 Supp. 21-3301, K.S.A. 21-3506); two counts of rape (K.S.A. 21-3502); two counts of aggravated burglary (K.S.A.1991 Supp. 21-3716); two counts of aggravated assault (K.S.A. 21-3410[a]; and four counts of aggravated kidnapping (K.S.A. 21-3421).

Two cases were consolidated for trial. The facts are summarized as follows.

Case No. 90 CR 1701

On July 21, 1990, defendant, James and Greg Walker, Harabia Johnson, and Dejuan Harris went to the residence of Jerome Alcorn looking for a woman, D.G. Upon learning she was not there, they left. Shortly thereafter they returned, forced their way in, and refused to leave. Alcorn was physically abused and prevented from leaving. When D.G. arrived, she was restrained and raped, and sodomy was attempted. Ultimately, Alcorn and D.G. escaped from their captors.

Case No. 90 CR 1702

On July 21, 1990, defendant, James Walker, Darrell Bailey, and Harabia Johnson went to the residence of Bailey's great-uncle, Sylvester Johnson. Bailey gained admittance while the other three waited outside. Then, over Sylvester's objection, the three entered the residence. Sylvester was told he was "gonna die tonight." Rose Ann Johnson was visiting Sylvester at the time. Rose Ann was struck and her purse was taken. Sylvester was stabbed several times. Rose Ann had bank credit cards in her purse. The four intruders forced Sylvester and Rose Ann into the woman's automobile. Sylvester was stabbed several more times while being taken to the vehicle. Rose Ann was forced to perform oral sodomy on defendant. Defendant and Bailey forced Rose Ann to attempt to obtain money from an automatic teller machine. Two other customers arrived at the bank. In the confusion, Sylvester escaped, despite having been stabbed 27 times. Early the following morning, Rose Ann's nude body was found in Harrison Park. She had been stomped to death. Other facts will be stated as necessary for the discussion of particular issues. It should be noted that Darrell Bailey's convictions for the crimes arising from the Rose Ann/Sylvester incident were affirmed (except for a rape conviction) in State v. Bailey, 251 Kan. 156, 834 P.2d 342 (1992).

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE

COURT'S DETERMINATION DEFENDANT SHOULD BE

PROSECUTED AS AN ADULT

At the time of the commission of the charged offenses herein, defendant was 15 1/2 years old. The class breakdown of the 15 felonies with which he was charged is as follows:

                Class A -- 5
                Class B -- 4
                Class C -- 4
                Class D -- 2
                

NOTE: Originally, defendant was charged with aggravated criminal sodomy of D.G. At trial, the complaint was amended to attempted aggravated criminal sodomy. Therefore, the convictions were for three class B felonies and five class C felonies.

K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38-1636 provides in pertinent part:

"(a) At any time after commencement of proceedings under this code against a respondent who was: (1) 14 or 15 years of age at the time of the offense or offenses alleged in the complaint, if any such offense is or offenses are a class A or B felony, and prior to entry of an adjudication or the beginning of an evidentiary hearing at which the court may enter adjudication as provided in K.S.A. 38-1655, and amendments thereto.... the county or district attorney may file a motion requesting that the court authorize prosecution of the respondent as an adult under the applicable criminal statute.

....

"(e) In determining whether or not prosecution as an adult should be authorized, the court shall consider each of the following factors: (1) The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of the community requires prosecution as an adult; (2) whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner; (3) whether the offense was against a person or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted; (4) the number of alleged offenses unadjudicated and pending against the respondent; (5) the previous history of the respondent, including whether the respondent had been adjudicated a delinquent or miscreant under the Kansas juvenile code or a juvenile offender under this code and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons or property, and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of physical violence; (6) the sophistication or maturity of the respondent as determined by consideration of the respondent's home, environment, emotional attitude, pattern of living or desire to be treated as an adult; (7) whether there are facilities or programs available to the court which are likely to rehabilitate the respondent prior to the expiration of the court's jurisdiction under this code; and (8) whether the interests of the respondent or of the community would be better served by criminal prosecution. The insufficiency of evidence pertaining to any one or more of the factors listed in this subsection shall not in and of itself be determinative of the issue. Subject to the provisions of K.S.A. 38-1653, and amendments thereto, written reports and other materials relating to the respondent's mental, physical, educational and social history may be considered by the court.

"(f) The court may authorize prosecution as an adult upon completion of the hearing if the court finds that the respondent was: (1) 14 or 15 years of age at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, if the offense is a class A or B felony, and that there is substantial evidence that the respondent should be prosecuted as an adult for the offense with which the respondent is charged."

Defendant claims no error in the procedure utilized by the court under K.S.A.1991 Supp. 38-1636. Rather, he contends there was no substantial competent evidence supporting the court's finding on factor (e)(7) of the statute that there were no facilities or programs available which were likely to rehabilitate him prior to the expiration of the court's jurisdiction under the Kansas Juvenile Offenders Code (K.S.A. 38-1601 et seq.).

In making its determination that defendant should be prosecuted as an adult, the court stated the following relative to factor (e)(7):

"We look at number seven, whether there are facilities or programs available to the Court which are likely to rehabilitate the Respondent prior to the expiration of the Court's jurisdiction.... I acknowledge that Rodney has never been in SRS custody and never directly received the programs that may be available through a youth center, but then again ... we have to look at the severity of the accusations here, the harm that was caused, the manner in which it was inflicted and in many respects the victimization and terrorization of people whether it's likely this rehabilitation will occur within the time period in which this Court has jurisdiction, and there's a real question in that regard.... Now, we do have some testimony to the contrary, but I certainly have a question over whether rehabilitation would occur within that time, and with Rodney my question is whether rehabilitation would occur within the time the Court has jurisdiction in regard to that. In Ms. Woody's [a court services officer who testified on defendant's behalf] opinion, she has based her opinion on her prior contact without any knowledge of circumstances in this case and I don't know whether that opinion would remain the same if she were provided that information."

The court's statement reflects it did not specifically find that there were no programs or facilities available which were likely to rehabilitate defendant within the applicable time frame. Rather, the court states it has a question whether rehabilitation could occur in such time frame. The defendant seeks review as though a specific finding that there were no facilities available for rehabilitation within the time frame had been made.

The clear language of the statute makes...