State v. Myers, 67626
Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 67626,67626 |
Citation | 255 Kan. 3,872 P.2d 236 |
Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kym E. MYERS, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Under K.S.A. 22-3420(3), a trial court must accede to a jury's request to read back testimony. The manner of acceding to the request is subject to trial court discretion.
2. The trial court is free to clarify the jury's read-back request where the read-back request is unclear or too broad, or the read-back would jeopardize the manageability of the trial. Discretion rests with the trial court to clarify and focus the jury's inquiry.
Dennis Moore, of Moriarty, Erker & Moore, Overland Park, argued the cause, and Kathleen L. Sloan, of the same firm, was with him on the brief, for appellant.
JaLynn Copp, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued the cause, and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., was with her on the brief, for appellee.
This case describes the nature of the duty imposed on the trial court by K.S.A. 22-3420(3) to read back testimony requested by a jury during deliberations. The issue is whether the trial court's failure to read back the requested testimony is reversible error. The Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion filed September 3, 1993, 858 P.2d 837 found reversible error and remanded for a new trial. We granted the State's petition requesting review of the read-back issue. The trial court's interpretation of K.S.A. 22-3420(3) is a determination of law which frames the issue on appeal; consequently, our standard of review is unlimited. State v. Craig, 254 Kan. 575, 578, 867 P.2d 1013 (1994). We conclude that the trial court's failure to respond meaningfully to the read-back request was an abuse of discretion.
Kym E. Myers was convicted of one count each of sexual battery, K.S.A. 21-3517, and rape, K.S.A. 21-3502. D.M., a 17-year-old high school student, helped her mother clean Myers' law office. D.M. was cleaning the office alone. Myers maneuvered D.M. into his inner office, closed and locked the door, pulled her to the floor, and had sexual intercourse.
During deliberations, the jury presented the trial court with several questions. The following interchange occurred:
The jury requested copies of the testimony of three detectives and Dr. William Logan. (The parties agreed that the written police reports had not been admitted into evidence.) The State called three detectives who had been involved in the investigation of D.M.'s complaint as witnesses. Each testified at length. Dr. Logan was a defense witness who specialized in forensic psychiatry. Dr. Logan testified about his examination of D.M. and what he perceived to be the alternate causes for her emotional condition. The State had introduced testimony that D.M. was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.
The trial court's response to the jury's question was neither responsive nor helpful. Judge Lewis, speaking for the Court of Appeals majority, stated:
K.S.A. 22-3420(3) states:
"After the jury has retired for deliberation, if they desire to be informed as to any part of the law or evidence arising in the case, they may request the officer to conduct them to the court, where the information on the point of the law shall be given, or the evidence shall be read or exhibited to them in the presence of the defendant, unless he voluntarily absents himself, and his counsel and after notice to the prosecuting attorney." (Emphasis added.)
We stated in Redford, 242 Kan. at 667-68, 750 P.2d 1013, that a trial court is required under K.S.A. 22-3420(3) to have testimony read back to the jury when the jury so requests. The means by which the court complies with a jury request is subject to its discretion. Redford is controlling. Any inference from State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 511, 731 P.2d 842, cert. denied 483 U.S. 1024, 107 S.Ct. 3272, 97 L.Ed.2d 770 (1987), suggesting that a trial court has discretion to deny a jury's request for a read-back is unwarranted. The Ruebke jury's request for a testimony read-back was granted. 240 Kan. at 511, 731 P.2d 842.
'If after the jury has retired for deliberation, it desires further information as to any part of the law or evidence pertaining to the case, it may communicate its request through the bailiff to the court in such manner as directed by the court, following which the court, after notice to counsel for the parties, may consider and make such provision for a response to the request of the jury as the court finds to be required under the circumstances.' (Emphasis added.)
See K.S.A.1992 Supp. 60-248(e).
Finally, the Court of Appeals considered the question of prejudice, concluding:
One member of the panel dissented. The dissenter concluded that: (1) clear prejudice was not shown by Myers, (2) Myers did not object to the trial court's response, and (3) the trial court's action was probably error, but not reversible error.
Discussion
We adopt the language of the Court of Appeals quoted in our...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Myers, 74078
...the case for a new trial in an unpublished opinion filed September 3, 1993. We affirmed the Court of Appeals. See State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, 872 P.2d 236 (1994). After remand, Myers pleaded no contest on August 15, 1994, to the aggravated sexual battery (K.S.A. 21-3518 [Ensley 1988] ) of h......
-
State v. Crane, 71905
...the victim/witness and each individual juror. Rules applicable and analogous in this court's review of this issue were stated in State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, Syl. p 1, 872 P.2d 236 (1994): "Under K.S.A. 22-3420(3), a trial court must accede to a jury's request to read back testimony. The man......
-
State v. Bryant
...a read-back, and the trial court's obligation to comply with the request, is contained in K.S.A. 22-3420(3): see State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, 6, 872 P.2d 236 (1994). That statute "After the jury has retired for deliberation, if they desire to be informed as to any part of the law or evidence......
-
State v. McWilliams
...Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). The manner of responding to the jury's request is within the district court's discretion. State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, 6, 872 P.2d 236 (1994). In doing so, the district court “is free to clarify the jury's read-back request where the read-back request is unc......
-
K.s.a. 22-4901 Et Seq. - Offender Registration in Kansas
...38. 260 Kan. 669, 923 P.2d. 1024 (1996), cert. denied 521 U.S. 1118, 138 L.Ed.2d 1012, 117 S.Ct. 2508 (1997). 39. State v. Myers, 255 Kan. 3, 872 P.2d 236 (1994). 40. K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 22-4904. 41. K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 22-4909. 42. Myers, 260 Kan. at 681. 43. Id. at 696. 44. Id. at 671. 45. Id......