State v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 11 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 123,383 |
| Citation | 62 Kan.App.2d 59,506 P.3d 930 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellant, v. Cass Wayne MCDONALD, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Jodi Liftin, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellant.
Debra J. Wilson, of Capital Appeals and Conflicts Office, for appellee.
Before Atcheson, P.J., Hill and Gardner, JJ.
In 2011, police interviewed Cass Wayne McDonald about sexual assault allegations. In 2013, the State charged McDonald with rape of a child under 14, yet the State did not arrest him until 2019. McDonald moved to suppress his 2011 statements to police and to dismiss the State's complaint based on a speedy trial violation. The district court granted both motions, and the State appeals both decisions. Finding the district court properly dismissed the State's complaint, we affirm without reaching the merits of the suppression issue.
In September 2011, four-year-old P.S.E. and her father (Father) went to the Topeka Police Department and reported that sometime during the previous few months Cass Wayne McDonald had inserted his finger into P.S.E.'s vagina. McDonald was related to P.S.E. through her mother and sometimes stayed in the same house as P.S.E. during the summer when the assault reportedly occurred. Father, who shared custody of P.S.E., learned of the incident after he picked P.S.E. up from her mother's home and promptly contacted police.
P.S.E. participated in a "Safe Talk" interview in Topeka shortly after disclosing the incident to Father. Detective Braden Palmberg watched P.S.E.'s Safe Talk interview through a video feed, and then spoke to McDonald. McDonald agreed to meet Palmberg at the police station for questioning on November 5, 2011.
Palmberg never gave McDonald Miranda warnings. McDonald told Palmberg he lived on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico before moving to Topeka in 2011 and that his older brother had been convicted of touching his own daughter in New Mexico. McDonald claimed that those allegations were false but his brother just "went with it."
Palmberg then confronted McDonald with P.S.E.'s allegations, asking him to explain why P.S.E. reported him. Palmberg also told McDonald that one of P.S.E.'s friends had claimed McDonald touched her inappropriately. McDonald denied touching either of the girls or ever committing that type of act.
Palmberg asked McDonald if he was considered a suspect in the New Mexico crime, and McDonald denied that he was. Palmberg asked McDonald if he ever wanted to touch P.S.E. but McDonald denied that too. When pressed to explain how P.S.E. could give Palmberg details about the event, McDonald persisted in his denial. McDonald explained that he did not know why P.S.E. claimed he touched her, but suggested Father may have made up the allegations. McDonald also felt he may have been accused because he was the only "boy" in his grandmother's house, which is where the incident allegedly occurred. Still, McDonald claimed he was never left alone there with P.S.E. Palmberg released McDonald without arresting him.
Palmberg interviewed McDonald a second time on November 30, 2011, again without giving McDonald Miranda warnings. Palmberg told McDonald he knew McDonald had recently been interviewed by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents about the New Mexico incident with McDonald's niece. McDonald told Palmberg that he had explained to FBI agents that he may have accidentally touched his niece in New Mexico while changing her diaper, but he never purposefully touched or penetrated her in any way. McDonald denied that anything like that had happened with P.S.E.
When accused of committing all acts alleged and showing a pattern, McDonald continued to maintain his innocence in this case. But McDonald eventually said he needed help with "not touching little girls, or something like that." McDonald then admitted he sometimes wanted to touch little girls, including P.S.E., but denied ever doing it.
McDonald said when the children were around, he would take long walks or play video games to make sure he was never put in a compromising situation. He said that when he moved to Kansas, he began growing his fingernails long to ensure he would not engage in that type of behavior. But McDonald still denied touching, reaching out to, or grabbing P.S.E.
McDonald told Palmberg he was guilty of the offense his brother had been convicted of in New Mexico. But when asked what he had done, McDonald explained that he was referring to the accidental grazing of his niece's vagina during a diaper change that he had described earlier. But McDonald continued to deny ever touching P.S.E. Palmberg did not arrest McDonald when the interview ended.
A week or two after Palmberg's second interview of McDonald, Palmberg met with P.S.E.'s grandmother (Grandmother). She told Palmberg that McDonald had moved back to the reservation in New Mexico. In April 2012, Palmberg completed an affidavit detailing his investigation. Palmberg did not have any more contact with McDonald, his family, or other law enforcement agencies about this case after April 2012.
In May 2013, the State charged McDonald with one count of rape of a child under 14 years old based on P.S.E.'s allegation. The district court issued a warrant for McDonald's arrest about a week later. The warrant was entered into the NCIC database and remained active for several years. McDonald was also listed on the Northeast Kansas Most Wanted list.
In September 2015, John Peterson, an officer assigned to the United States Marshals Service Violent Offender Fugitive Task Force, contacted the Marshal's Office in Farmington, New Mexico, to discuss the warrant for McDonald's arrest. Peterson notified the marshals that McDonald might be in Farmington, New Mexico, and asked them to search the surrounding areas.
Police eventually apprehended McDonald in July 2019 in Farmington, Utah. It was later discovered that from 2016 to 2019, McDonald had worked for a roofing company on projects in Wyoming and Utah. McDonald had obtained that position using his legal name and social security number. While working on an air force base in Utah in June 2019, McDonald forgot the pass he had been issued and needed to enter the base. He was required to undergo another background check to get a new pass. While performing this additional background check, McDonald's employer discovered the active warrant for McDonald's arrest and contacted police.
After police arrested McDonald, he attended his first appearance on the State's charge in August 2019. During pretrial proceedings, McDonald moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing that he had been subject to custodial interrogation without having been given Miranda warnings and that his statements had been made involuntarily. The district court held several hearings on the suppression motion, but we do not find it necessary to set them out in detail. The district court later granted McDonald's motion to suppress, agreeing that he had been subject to custodial interrogation without receiving Miranda warnings and that his statements had been made involuntarily.
McDonald also moved to dismiss his case based on a constitutional speedy trial violation because of the delay after his warrant issued in 2013. The district court held two hearings to consider the motion to dismiss. After the parties' closing arguments, the district court made findings on several factors applicable to McDonald's speedy trial claim but asked the parties to submit more briefing on the final factor—prejudice to McDonald.
The court later granted McDonald's motion to dismiss based on a constitutional speedy trial violation, finding the delay caused actual prejudice to McDonald's defense because evidence showed it unlikely that McDonald could receive a fair trial.
The State filed an interlocutory appeal from the district court's order suppressing McDonald's statements and later filed an amended notice of appeal from the district court's order dismissing its complaint.
We first decide whether the district court properly dismissed the State's complaint. This is because if the district court was correct, the State's claims about the suppression of evidence will be moot. Cf. State v. Renteria , No. 99,309, 2009 WL 500953, at *2 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion) ().
When considering a district court's decision on a defendant's constitutional speedy trial right, appellate courts review the supporting factual findings for substantial competent evidence, but we review the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those facts de novo. State v. Owens , 310 Kan. 865, 868, 451 P.3d 467 (2019). "Whether a lower court properly applied the Barker factors is a question of law subject to unlimited review." In re Care & Treatment of Ellison , 305 Kan. 519, 533, 385 P.3d 15 (2016).
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution grants every defendant the "right to a speedy and public trial." Similarly, section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights guarantees Kansas defendants "[i]n all prosecutions ... a speedy public trial by an impartial jury." See Owens , 310 Kan. at 869, 451 P.3d 467.
To continue reading
Request your trial