State v. Mader
| Citation | 261 Kan. 280,931 P.2d 1247 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 72720,72720 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jon Marshall MADER, Appellant. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In a criminal trial on a charge of aggravated battery the State may not introduce evidence of good character of the victim prior to such time as the defense attacks the character of the victim. This is equally true in cases where the anticipated defense is self-defense.
2. If a person's character or a trait of his or her character is in issue, it may be proven by testimony in the form of opinion, evidence of reputation, or evidence of specific instances of the person's conduct, subject to the limitations of K.S.A. 60-447 and K.S.A. 60-448. K.S.A. 60-446.
3. Where a defendant relies upon self-defense, his or her attempt to prove that the victim was the aggressor in the incident giving rise to the criminal charge does not, standing alone, place the character of the victim in issue under K.S.A. 60-446.
Benjamin C. Wood, Lawrence, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Scott I. Showalter, Acting County Attorney, argued the cause, and Michael D. Irvin, Acting County Attorney, and Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, were with him on the briefs for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated battery. He claimed self-defense. The trial court, over objection, allowed the State to present independent evidence of the peaceable nature of the victim when the character of the victim was not at issue. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exclusion of such evidence was limited to homicide cases. We granted the defendant's petition for review to determine whether, under the circumstances, independent evidence of the peaceable nature of the victim was admissible in this aggravated battery case.
The defendant, Jon Marshall Mader, was charged with aggravated battery, K.S.A. 21-3414, for striking Travis Radnor in the chin. The defendant and his friend, Jesse Barrera, were "hanging out" at the local Love's Country Store with several groups of young people from Colby. Barrera, who was from Brewster, heard that some people from Winona were harassing his sister. Because of this report as well as a rivalry among young people from Brewster and Winona, Barrera and the defendant left to look for the reported group of Winona youth. Whether Barrera and others planned to fight the Winona youth was a matter of dispute, however, several cars of Colby youth followed Barrera and the defendant to see what would happen.
The same night, the victim, Travis Radnor, and his girlfriend came to Colby from Winona to see a movie. After the movie they met friends from Winona who were parked in a parking lot. While they were there, several cars of Colby youth arrived. The Colby group approached the Winona group.
Barrera was friendly with Radnor. Nevertheless, Radnor spoke with hostility towards the defendant as he approached. The defendant responded in kind. The defendant and Radnor had never met and did not know one another.
Witnesses disagreed whether Radnor aggressively lunged toward the defendant at that time or whether he simply stood up from leaning on his car. Upon the motion by Radnor, the defendant struck him in the jaw, causing him to fall to his hands and knees. Testimony again conflicted on whether the defendant also kicked Radnor when he was down.
After Radnor was hit, Barrera said something to the effect that the defendant had hit the wrong guy. The defendant and Barrera proceeded to help Radnor get cleaned up from the blood, which included driving him to a location with running water. Following this activity, Radnor's friends first notified an emergency medical technician, then Radnor's mother. Radnor was admitted to the Colby hospital that night. As a result of his injuries, Radnor underwent extensive reconstructive and dental surgery.
At trial, the defendant alleged that he acted in self-defense. The issue of whether the defendant or Radnor was the aggressor was hotly disputed. After being convicted by the jury, the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion filed May 17, 1996.
In its case in chief, the State questioned 9 of its 14 witnesses as to whether they knew any tendency of the victim, Radnor, to get into or provoke fights. Initially, the court sustained an objection on the basis of relevancy when the State asked a local police officer whether any complaints had ever been filed against Radnor. However the trial court overruled the defendant's objection the next time the State entered into this line of questioning. The State proceeded to ask its remaining witnesses their opinion of Radnor's general reputation and character for peacefulness. The State made reference to Radnor's peaceable character in its closing arguments to the jury.
As early as 1874 in the case of State v. Potter, 13 Kan. 414, Syl. p 1 (1874), this court held that "[o]n a trial for murder, it is error to permit the state in the first instance, and as a part of its case, to offer testimony showing the character or reputation of the deceased as a quiet and peaceable man." In the more recent case of State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, Syl. p 1, 576 P.2d 647 (1978), we again affirmed this principle:
At the time Bradley was decided, Kansas had adopted the Code of Civil Procedure. One argument made by the State in Bradley was that within the code, the enactment of K.S.A. 60-446 and K.S.A. 60-447 gave it the right to introduce such evidence in its case in chief. In response to this argument we said:
"The first question to be resolved is whether or not evidence of the character of the deceased, whether in proper form or not, should have been admitted in the state's case in chief. K.S.A. 60-446, -447, -448, -449, and -450 all relate to how character, custom, or habit may be proved. The state's contention that the enactment of these statutes gives them the right to introduce such evidence in its case in chief is incorrect. In 1874 in State v. Potter, 13 Kan. 414, we said:
'On a trial for murder, it is error to permit the state in the first instance, and as a part of its case, to offer testimony showing the character or reputation of the deceased as a quiet and peaceable man.' (Syl.p 1.)
The statement in Potter was a correct statement of the law of Kansas at that time and it remains a correct statement. The 1963 rules of evidence do not overrule Potter. The admission of such evidence in the state's case in chief was error. In this case the character of the deceased was never attacked on the record. The admission of such evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cheever
...in issue" simply by asserting an intoxication defense. State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737, 545 P.2d 303 (1976); cf. State v. Mader, 261 Kan. 280, 283, 931 P.2d 1247 (1997) (when defendant relies upon self-defense, his or her attempt to prove victim was aggressor does not, standing alone, pl......
-
State v. Cheever
...issue" simply by asserting an intoxication defense. State v. Bowers , 218 Kan. 736, 737, 545 P.2d 303 (1976) ; cf . State v. Mader , 261 Kan. 280, 283, 931 P.2d 1247 (1997) (when defendant relies upon self-defense, his or her attempt to prove victim was aggressor does not, standing alone, p......
-
State v. Kunellis, 86,829.
...stand." The State may not present evidence of a victim's good character unless and until it has been attacked by the defense. State v. Mader, 261 Kan. 280, Syl. ¶ 1, 931 P.2d 1247 (1997). Epstein was the State's first witness in its case in On the same theme, Kunellis complains about the St......