State v. Martin

• Court: Kansas Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: HERD; LOCKETT
• Citation: State v. Martin, 660 P.2d 563, 233 Kan. 148 (Kan. 1983)
• Decision Date: 26 March 1983
• Docket Number: No. 54919,54919
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Anthony Ray MARTIN, and Keith A. Martin, Appellees.

Page 563

660 P.2d 563

233 Kan. 148

STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Anthony Ray MARTIN, and Keith A. Martin, Appellees.

No. 54919.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

March 26, 1983.

Syllabus by the Court

In an interlocutory criminal appeal by the State from a trial court's order holding the State could not grant a witness immunity from prosecution for perjury, it is held: The appeal does not fall within the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3603.

Geary N. Gorup, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued the cause and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., and Clark V. Owens, Dist. Atty., were with him on the brief for appellant.

Charles A. O'Hara of O'Hara, Busch, Johnson & Falk, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Anthony Ray Martin.

Craig Shultz, Wichita, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee Keith A. Martin.

HERD, Justice:

This is an appeal in a criminal action by the State from the trial court's order holding the State could not grant a witness immunity from the commission of perjury. We hold this court is without jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.

On November 6, 1980, John Johnson was shot and killed as he drove his truck down a Wichita street. On February 5, 1982, Marcus Crawford testified before an inquisition pertaining to Johnson's death. Mr. Crawford related generally that he was with the two appellees, Anthony and Keith Martin, during the evening of November 6, 1980. Crawford, along with another person, was seated in the back seat of Keith Martin's car. Keith Martin was driving and Anthony Martin was in the passenger seat. After Keith and Anthony Martin had words with two other men at a gas station, the four resumed their ride in Martin's car. Crawford testified Keith Martin then drove alongside the vehicle containing the men with whom they had argued. Anthony Martin rolled down his window and shot the driver of the vehicle, John Johnson.

As a result of Crawford's testimony at the inquisition, Anthony Ray Martin was charged with second degree murder, K.S.A. 21-3402, and Keith Martin was charged with aiding a felon, K.S.A. 21-3812. At the preliminary hearing on the charges the State called Marcus Crawford as a witness. Crawford refused to testify. Crawford's refusal led the State to do two things. First, the prosecution introduced Crawford's inquisition testimony as substantive evidence at the preliminary hearing. The judge admitted it over defense counsel's objection. Second, in an attempt to get Crawford to testify, the district attorney granted him immunity. The grant of immunity stated:

"I, Clark V. Owens, District Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial District of Kansas, pursuant to the authority vested in me by K.S.A. 22-3102, hereby grant Marcus L. Crawford immunity from prosecution or punishment on account of any transaction or matter contained in any statement or about which he shall be compelled to testify in this matter and any such statement or testimony shall not be used against him in any prosecution for a crime under the laws of the State of Kansas or any municipal ordinance provided however, that this grant of immunity shall not apply to any prosecution for perjury or false statement or any other crime committed in giving a statement or testimony in this action."

After the State's grant of immunity the trial court threatened to hold Crawford in contempt if he refused to testify. Crawford reluctantly agreed to take the stand. He denied the truth of his inquisition testimony.

After the preliminary hearing the trial judge bound both appellees over for trial. Thereafter both appellees filed motions to suppress the inquisition testimony of Marcus Crawford. They argued the prosecutor had illegally granted Crawford immunity and that the introduction of the inquisition statement would amount to sanctioning perjury. After a hearing on the matter the trial court reached its decision, stating:

"THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that the motions to suppress are overruled. It is further...