State v. Moore
Decision Date | 17 July 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 59476,59476 |
Citation | 748 P.2d 833,242 Kan. 1 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gary MOORE, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. An offense is a lesser included offense under K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(d) when all of the elements necessary to prove the lesser offense are present and required to establish the elements of the greater offense.
2. The crime of aggravated incest (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3603) is not a lesser included offense of the crime of rape (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3502).
3. In an appeal from conviction of one count of rape and one count of aggravated incest, the record is examined and it is held: The district court did not err in (1) admitting evidence of prior sexual conduct between the defendant and victim; (2) failing to give a limiting instruction as requested by the defendant; and (3) denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial and a new trial.
Bruce C. Barry, of Bengtson, Waters & Barry, Chartered, of Junction City, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Edwin A. Van Petten, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with him on the brief for appellee.
Gary Moore was convicted by a jury of one count of rape, K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3502, and one count of aggravated incest, K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3603. He was sentenced to five to twenty years' and two to five years' imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. Defendant appeals, contending that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence prior sexual relations between him and the victim without a limiting instruction and in denying defendant's motion for mistrial and new trial based on statements by the prosecuting attorney in closing argument. Defendant also contends that aggravated incest is a lesser included offense of rape.
The basic facts are not in dispute. B.M. is the daughter of the defendant. B.M. testified that, from the time she was six to when she was twelve years old, the defendant had frequently engaged in sexual intercourse and oral sex with her. The defendant ceased this activity when B.M. threatened to tell her mother. The defendant and B.M.'s mother later separated.
In July 1984, the defendant indicated to B.M. that he was sorry that the prior sexual activities had occurred, and B.M. moved into the defendant's house in Alta Vista, Kansas. In August, 1984, the defendant took B.M. to a beer keg party in Wabaunsee County. After they returned home, B.M. went to her bedroom and fell asleep. B.M. testified that she was awakened later in the night by the defendant, who entered her room and engaged in sexual intercourse with her, to which she did not consent and against which she did not resist out of fear. In August 1984, B.M. was sixteen years old.
We first consider defendant's contention that the crime of aggravated incest (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3603) is a lesser included crime of rape (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3502) and that, therefore, while he might be convicted of either aggravated incest or rape, he could not be convicted of both. K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3107(2) provides:
K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3107(2)(a) was discussed in State v. Long, 234 Kan. 580, 675 P.2d 832 (1984). In Long, this court held that theft (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3701) is a lesser included offense of robbery (K.S.A. 21-3426), even though the two crimes contain separate and distinct elements, and thus would not fall under clause (d) of 21-3107. 234 Kan. at 587-92, 675 P.2d 832. This court found that robbery and theft were traditionally considered to be different degrees of the same generic crime of larceny, and that theft would therefore be an included crime of robbery under clause (a) of 21-3107. 234 Kan. at 590-92, 675 P.2d 832.
For purposes of K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3107(2)(d), on the other hand, an offense is considered an included crime when "all [of the] elements necessary to prove the lesser offense are present and required to establish the elements of the greater offense." State v. Coberly, 233 Kan. 100, 107, 661 P.2d 383 (1983). If the lesser offense requires proof of an element which is not required of the greater offense, it is not a lesser included offense. State v. Galloway, 238 Kan. 415, 710 P.2d 1320 (1985); State v. Daniels, 223 Kan. 266, 573 P.2d 607 (1977). Under this test, the crime of rape has been held to include as lesser included offenses the crimes of aggravated assault (K.S.A. 21-3410), State v. Lassley, 218 Kan. 758, 545 P.2d 383 (1976); and indecent liberties with a child (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3503), State v. Coberly, 233 Kan. 100, 661 P.2d 383. The crimes of adultery (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3507), State v. Platz, 214 Kan. 74, 519 P.2d 1097 (1974); lewd and lascivious behavior (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3508), State v. Davis, 236 Kan. 538, 694 P.2d 418 (1985); and aggravated sexual battery (K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3518), State v. Galloway, 238 Kan. 415, 710 P.2d 1320, are not lesser included offenses of the crime of rape.
K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3603 defines aggravated incest:
Rape is defined by K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3502:
The two crimes may both arise from an act of sexual intercourse. However, each of the crimes requires additional elements which are not required by the other crime. Aggravated incest requires that the prohibited sex act be performed with a victim under 18 years of age who is within the required degree of kinship, and that the offender is aware of the relationship. These elements are not required to convict a defendant of rape. Rape requires that the act of sexual intercourse be performed without the consent of the victim and that the victim's resistance has been overcome by force, fear, or another designated circumstance. These elements are not required to convict a defendant of aggravated incest. Aggravated incest is not a crime which is necessarily proved if the crime of rape is charged and proved.
Nor have incest and rape been traditionally considered to be different degrees of the same generic offense for purposes of K.S.A.1986 Supp. 21-3107(2)(a). Rather, the crimes of incest and rape in Kansas and other states have been considered to be separate and independent crimes. In State v. Learned, 73 Kan. 328, 85 P. 293 (1906), the defendant was charged with six counts of incest. The defendant contended that the prosecution was barred since he had previously been convicted of charges of statutory rape arising from the same act of sexual intercourse. This court disagreed, stating:
In Wiebe v. Hudspeth, 163 Kan. 30, 32, 180 P.2d 315 (1947), this court again addressed the same issue of "whether one act of intercourse could be the basis of two charges--statutory rape and incest--providing the other elements of each offense were present." Relying upon Learned, the court held that the defendant could be charged in the same information with statutory rape and incest, even where the charges arose from a single act of sexual intercourse, and affirmed the defendant's convictions on both charges.
42 C.J.S., Incest § 1(c) states: State v. Learned, 73 Kan. 328, 85 P. 293, is one of the authorities cited for this statement. This work continues, stating that, in jurisdictions where mutual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beem v. McKune, No. 00-3224.
...the last definitive statement from the Kansas Supreme Court. In Carmichael, the Kansas Supreme Court stated that "[i]n [State v. Moore, 242 Kan. 1, 748 P.2d 833 (Kan.1987)], ... [w]e held [that] aggravated incest is not a lesser included crime of rape.... [E]ach crime required proof of an e......
-
Brown v. State
...told similar stories, and the ten-year-old brother saw the girls leaving defendant's bedroom sweating and crying. In State v. Moore, 242 Kan. 1, 748 P.2d 833 (1987), corroboration was the victim's testimony concerning prior a. KX, a stepdaughter living in foster homes since 1985 because of ......
-
State v. Dunn
..., 255 Kan. at 19, 872 P.2d 240 (recognizing State v. Williams , 250 Kan. 730, 829 P.2d 892 [1992], implicitly overruled State v. Moore , 242 Kan. 1, 7, 748 P.2d 833 [1987] ; Moore had allowed two convictions—one for rape, one for aggravated incest—based on same act). Indeed, the view that a......
-
State v. Lucas
...the charged crime is a lesser included offense of the charged crime. See K.S.A.1987 Supp. 21-3107(2)(d). As we stated in State v. Moore, 242 Kan. 1, Syl. p 1, 748 P.2d 833 "An offense is a lesser included offense under K.S.A. [1987 Supp.] 21-3107(2)(d) when all of the elements necessary to ......
-
Dangerous Crossing: the Line Between Proper and Improper Argument
...witness' opinion, which would pass upon the credibility of another witness. State v. Giles, 27 Kan. App. 2d 340, ___ P.3d ___ (2000). 39. 242 Kan. 1, 9, 748 P.2d 833 (1987). 40. State v. Sperry, 267 Kan. 287, 305, 978 P.2d 933 (1999). 41. 228 Kan. 723, 732, 621 P.2d 423 (1980). 42. 224 Kan.......