State v. Knight
| Decision Date | 08 May 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 48158,48158 |
| Citation | 549 P.2d 1397,219 Kan. 863 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Harold KNIGHT, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under K.S.A. 21-3419 a terroristic threat as defined therein does not require that the defendant threaten to do the acts mentioned in the communication himself. It is sufficient for the defendant to convey the threats of some other person to do the forbidden acts, if the defendant sends the communication with the specific intent to terrorize another.
2. It is essential to the validity of an affidavit that it be sworn to or affirmed before some person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. A document simply acknowledged before a notary public is not an affidavit, and is insufficient to invoke the provisions of K.S.A. 20-311d where a motion is filed for change of judge.
Fred W. Phelps, Topeka, argued the cause, and was on the brief for appellant.
Raymond W. Radford, Chanute, argued the cause, and Curt T. Schneider, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
This is an appeal in a criminal action in which the jury found the Reverend Harold Knight (defendant-appellant) guilty of communicating a terroristic threat to a female parishioner, Anna May Walker. The principle question asserted on appeal is whether the appellant may be found guilty under K.S.A. 21-3419 by communicating a threat of violence allegedly made by another (that his wife had purchased a gun and intended to kill Anna May Walker).
Harold Knight is a Baptist preacher at the Wilson Avenue Baptist Church in Chanute, Kansas. The appellant became embroiled in what his counsel characterizes as a 'church fight.' The record discloses the church fight started or was heated by a controversy between the appellant and a doctor and the Neosho Memorial Hospital.
On May 16, 1974, the appellant and Anna May Walker, the complaining female parishioner, had a dispute at the appellant's house over his controversy with the doctor. On May 17, 1974, following the dispute between the appellant and Anna May Walker, the appellant's wife bought a gun, allegedly without the appellant's knowledge.
On Sunday, May 19, 1974, the appellant announced from the pulpit his personal confrontation with the doctor and the hospital was his personal business, and he didn't want any advice. Anna May Walker and three other church members took offense at his remarks and walked out. The appellant's wife, who had recently undergone surgery, was very upset and nervous after the service. She told the appellant about the gun and said she was afraid she would 'do something.' The appellant testified he then went into the church office and called Anna May's father, Ocie Beck. The appellant testified he merely informed Ocie Beck that Janice had purchased a gun and asked Ocie to ask Anna May to stay away from the appellant's house.
Mr. Beck testified Reverend Knight in a loud and vicious tone said that Janice, his wife, bought a gun last week and she was going to kill Anna May for what she did this morning. When Mr. Beck asked if Janice was with Reverend Knight, he was alleged to have said, 'No, she is in the car hunting for Anna May with the gun.'
When Mr. Beck told Anna May about the conversation she had a police officer search her home before she entered.
Anna May testified that on May 20, 1974 she was informed the appellant had called and wanted her to call him back. Anna May went to the Chanute Police Department to return the appellant's call because she wanted someone with authority to hear the threats being made over the phone. Officer Ogden of the Chanute Police Department was working as a dispatcher and had other duties to perform, but testified he overheard part of the conversation where the appellant told Anna May 'his wife had purchased a gun and was after her ass' and that 'he would get even with her if he had to do it through her parents.'
Anna May related the conversation as follows:
Anna May testified she was terrorized to such a degree she stayed up until two o'clock that night and stayed away from her home for ten days except when her husband was home.
The appellant related his conversation with Anna May as follows:
. . .'
He denied threatening Anna May in any way but admitted he did call her a bitch.
For the purpose of attacking Anna May's credibility, the appellant presented testimony indicating Anna May had written bad checks, and owed money to Avon and Frito Lay, her husband's employer. Anna May and her husband denied any wrongdoings.
Patricia Briley, who worked at the Neosho Memorial Hispital, testified that on Friday, May 17, the appellant told her that Janice had gone to buy a gun. She further testified on May 20, she overheard the appellant tell Anna May, 'I don't care if I do kill your mother as long as I get back at you.' This witness's credibility was also attacked by the appellant.
The appellant was charged with two counts of communicating a terroristic threat, one for the May 19 telephone call to Ocie Beck and one for the May 20 telephone conversation with Anna May Walker. The second count in the information read:
'That on or about the 20th day of May, 1974, in the County of Neosho and State of Kansas, HAROLD KNIGHT, then and there being, did then and there unlawfully, willfully and feloniously communicate a threat to commit violence with intent to terrorize another, to wit: ANNA MAY WALKER, by informing ANNA MAY WALKER that his wife, JANICE KNIGHT, had purchased a gun and intended to kill the said ANNA MAY WALKER, in violation of K.S.A. 1973 Supplement 21-3419, and all contrary to the form of the statutes in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Kansas.'
The jury found the appellant guilty of the second count, but not guilty of the first count.
Many points asserted on appeal have in common the appellant's contention that the information is jurisdictionally defective and fatally insufficient because it does not charge the appellant with himself threatening to commit violence, thus omitting an essential element of the offense defined by K.S.A. 21-3419. This section of the criminal code reads:
'A terroristic threat is any threat to commit violence communicated with intent to terrorize another, or to cause the evacuation of any building, place of assembly or facility of transportation, or in wanton disregard of the risk of causing such terror or evacuation.' (Emphasis added.)
Whether the appellant himself must threaten to commit violence is a case of first impression in Kansas. The only cases under 21-3419, supra, are State v. Gunzelman, 210 Kan. 481, 502 P.2d 705, 58 A.L.R.3d 522 which held the statute not to be unconstitutionally vague, and State v. Torline, 215 Kan. 539, 527 P.2d 994 which found substantial competent evidence for conviction.
The idea in K.S.A. 21-3419 was drawn from the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, § 211.3 which reads:
'A person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with purpose to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.' (Emphasis added.)
The Model Penal Code's provisions were not completely adopted in Kansas, and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lyman
....’ " (Emphasis added.) State ex rel. Secretary of DCF v. Smith , 306 Kan. 40, 50, 392 P.3d 68 (2017) (quoting State v. Knight , 219 Kan. 863, 867, 549 P.2d 1397 [1976] ). Here, no reference to a person with such oath-administration authority appears in any document filed by Lyman. Moreover,......
-
Knight v. Neodesha, Kan., Police Dept.
...against Judge Stadler. When no affidavit is filed, a motion for change of judge is insufficient and must fail. State v. Knight, 219 Kan. 863, 868, 549 P.2d 1397 (1976). Plaintiff also complains of misconduct by the judge that allegedly prejudiced his case. He alleges no specific instances o......
-
State v. Smith
...before a judge of a court of record or before an officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments"); see also State v. Knight , 219 Kan. 863, 867, 549 P.2d 1397 (1976) (defining "affidavit" as "a written statement, under oath, sworn to or affirmed by the person making it before some person......
-
Otte v. State
...be received. The statute prohibiting threat is applicable even though the threat is not made directly to the victim. State v. Knight, 1976, 219 Kan. 863, 549 P.2d 1397; Lenoir v. State, 1951, 197 Md. 495, 80 A.2d 3. It is immaterial whether a threat is directed against the person to whom it......
-
Recall of Local Elected Officials in Kansas
...at 1080. 125. Id. 126. K.S.A. 25-4325. 127. Meigs v. Black, 25 Kan. App. 2d 241, 243, 960 P.2d 770, 772 (1998) (citing State v. Knight, 219 Kan. 863, 867, 549 P.2d 1397 (1976)). 128. Eveleigh v. Conness, 261 Kan. 970, 983, 933 P.2d 675, 684 (1997). 129. K.S.A. 25-4325. 130. Eveleigh v. Conn......