State v. Satchell

Decision Date26 June 2020
Docket NumberNo. 116,151,116,151
Citation466 P.3d 459
Parties STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles D. SATCHELL, Appellant.
CourtKansas Supreme Court

Caroline M. Zuscheck, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Lesley A. Isherwood, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Marc Bennett, district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by Leben, J.:

Charles Satchell appeals his convictions of several sex offenses involving two children. He contends that the district court should not have allowed the State to present evidence that he had sexually abused three other children under similar circumstances.

But Kansas law allows the State to present evidence of similar prior sexual offenses to show a person's propensity to engage in that conduct. And although such evidence may be excluded if the potential for undue prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value, that wasn't the case here. All five children knew each other, and the circumstances of the events had many similarities. We find no error in the district court's decision to allow that evidence to be presented to the jury.

Satchell also raises an issue about the district court's decision to order two different forms of supervision once he finishes serving his prison sentence. We agree with him that only one of them should have been ordered, and we will vacate the district court's order of lifetime postrelease supervision.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The State charged Satchell with sex offenses for engaging in acts with two children, D.S. and Z.S., who are brothers. Satchell was convicted in a jury trial of nine charges: five counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, two counts of aggravated indecent liberties, one count of rape, and one count of criminal sodomy. The State alleged these acts took place between August 2010 and July 2014. At the time, D.S. and Z.S. would have been between 7 and 15 years old.

An important part of the State's case was evidence that Satchell had also sexually abused two boys, T.L. and A.C., and one girl, A.L., during the summer of 2010. At that time, T.L. was 8 and A.L. and A.C. were 7. A.L. and T.L. are siblings and the cousins of D.S. and Z.S. To protect the identities of these children, we're using only their initials, and we'll refer to the family and friends who testified about them by their first names. See Supreme Court Rule 7.043(c) (2020 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48).

The State argued that the event involving A.L., T.L., and A.C. showed that Satchell had a propensity to sexually abuse children. All three of those children had said that Satchell had touched their private parts in a swimming pool that summer while they were at D.S. and Z.S.'s house. A.C. also claimed that Satchell had touched his penis twice that summer at his house. Based on the statements of these children, the State had charged Satchell with sex offenses, but it later agreed to drop those charges under a plea deal. Satchell pleaded no contest to aggravated battery against A.L. and child endangerment against T.L. Evidence about Satchell's abuse of these other children was allowed under K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 60-455(d), which provides that "evidence of the defendant's commission of another act or offense of sexual misconduct is admissible[ ] and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant and probative." Before trial, the State asked the district court to find that this evidence was admissible to show that Satchell had the propensity to sexually abuse children. Satchell argued that the evidence should not be admitted because it would be unduly prejudicial to him, but the district court allowed its admission.

The State presented 11 witnesses at trial. The first six testified about the current charges, then five others testified about the 2010 allegations. But in part because the victims were related, mention of the 2010 allegations was interspersed throughout—five of the six witnesses to the current charges also mentioned the 2010 allegations or information about A.L., T.L., and A.C. The main issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred by admitting testimony about the 2010 allegations, so we need to set out the trial testimony that frames consideration of that legal issue.

The first witness was police officer Tammie Doshier. She had responded to a 911 call from D.S. and Z.S.'s mother, Angela. Doshier said that Angela reported that D.S. and Z.S. had each said that Satchell had sexually abused them.

The next witness was Angela. She explained that she and her children had met Satchell when he was dating one of her friends, a woman named Kylie. Satchell and Kylie would attend barbeques at Angela's house, and Satchell would play in the pool with D.S. and Z.S. At some point, Angela's family moved, and her sons then saw Satchell almost daily because he lived nearby. D.S. and Z.S. often played at Satchell's house.

The jury then heard from D.S. and Z.S. D.S. described many times that Satchell had sexually abused him between the ages of 10 and 15. Z.S. described several incidents of abuse when he was between the ages of 7 and 9.

D.S. recalled the first time was when Satchell moved his hands back and forth on D.S.'s penis. He said that happened again a week later; the second time, Satchell also tried unsuccessfully to put his penis into D.S.'s anus. D.S. said Satchell did put his penis in D.S.'s anus another time after first touching D.S.'s penis and performing oral sex. D.S. said Satchell performed oral sex again another time.

D.S. also recalled one event that involved Satchell's girlfriend, Jessica. D.S. said on that occasion, Jessica had performed oral sex on D.S. and that Satchell had touched D.S.'s penis afterward. D.S. also recalled two sleepovers when Satchell touched D.S.'s penis and performed oral sex. He said that Satchell often made D.S. "jack him off." And D.S. said he twice saw Satchell sexually abuse Z.S.

Z.S. described several incidents: Satchell touched Z.S.'s anus when he was 7; Satchell often French-kissed Z.S. when he was 8 or 9; that Satchell touched Z.S.'s penis one time and performed oral sex on Z.S. another time when Z.S. was 9; Satchell once made Z.S. put his hands up and down on Satchell's penis; Satchell once put his penis inside and outside Z.S.'s anus. Z.S. also described some incidents when Jessica was present: Satchell touched Z.S.'s penis while all three were in bed together; Jessica and Satchell both touched Z.S.'s penis three times; Jessica performed oral sex on Z.S.; and Satchell made Z.S. touch Jessica's vagina.

Kylie, who had dated Satchell from 2008 to 2011, said that Satchell had fantasized about touching D.S. inappropriately in their bedroom. She also said that she had seen D.S. and Satchell leaving the bedroom while both were buttoning up their pants, although Satchell had told her later that nothing had happened.

The last witness on the current charges was Detective Christopher Zandler, who had interviewed D.S., Z.S., Angela, and Angela's husband. He said both D.S. and Z.S. recounted sexual abuse, and the jury saw and heard Zandler's videotaped interviews of the boys.

As we have already noted, even though these six witnesses focused on the current charges, mentions of the 2010 allegations were interspersed. Officer Doshier talked about her interview with Angela, who is both the mother of D.S. and Z.S. and the aunt of two of the children alleged to have been abused in 2010. Doshier noted that Angela told her that Satchell abused D.S. and Z.S. around the same time he abused A.L. and T.L. Angela, Kylie, D.S., and Z.S. all testified that A.L., T.L., and A.C. would often play in the pool at Angela's house while Satchell was there. D.S. said that Satchell had touched him after he "had just got out" of prison from "the case with [A.L.], [T.L.], and [A.C.]" And Kylie said that Satchell had had dreams about A.L., T.L., A.C., and another child.

The trial next turned fully to the 2010 allegations. The State's evidence began with A.L., then age 12, T.L., then age 14, and A.C., then age 13. All three said that Satchell had touched their private parts that summer while all the kids were in the swimming pool at Angela's house. A.C. also said that Satchell had touched A.C.'s penis twice that summer at A.C.'s house.

Detective Lori Werlein testified about interviews she had done with A.L., T.L., and A.C. In her first interview with Satchell, he denied those allegations. She brought him back for a second interview at which Satchell agreed to have a polygraph examination, which was administered by Ricky Atteberry.

Atteberry, a special investigator with the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, was the State's final witness. He gave Satchell the polygraph exam. During that exam, Satchell denied the children's allegations. After the exam, as Atteberry continued to interview Satchell; Atteberry said that he believed Satchell had been deceptive about his contacts with A.L. Satchell then told Atteberry that Satchell had been "in the pool with [A.L.], behind her, and [Satchell had] rubbed on her vagina for approximately a minute."

Atteberry then asked Satchell to write that down on a piece of paper. Satchell wrote: "I was daydreaming about having sex with my girlfriend [and] my hand was in between [A.L.'s] legs. I realized what I was doing [and] immediately stopped. [F]or about 30-45 sec[onds] but less than 1 min[ute]." Satchell signed the written statement that he had inappropriately touched A.L. while "daydreaming." After that admission, Satchell was arrested for the 2010 events. Werlein told the jury about the plea agreement Satchell had entered into in 2011 to resolve those allegations.

Satchell and his mother, Brenda, testified for the defense. Satchell denied the allegations made by A.L., T.L., and A.C.; he said he had never been alone with any of them. He also denied the allegations made by D.S. and Z.S.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Owens
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • October 15, 2021
    ...an abuse of discretion, and the burden of proof is on the party alleging an abuse of discretion. State v. Satchell , 311 Kan. 633, 640-41, 466 P.3d 459 (2020) ; State v. Huddleston , 298 Kan. 941, 962, 318 P.3d 140 (2014). The "Dug a Hole" CommentsThe State sought to admit Rooshad's testimo......
  • State v. Brazzle
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • July 10, 2020
    ...again reviews this for abuse of discretion. State v. Thurber , 308 Kan. 140, 202, 420 P.3d 389 (2018). See also State v. Satchell , 311 Kan. 633, 644, 466 P.3d 459, 466–67 (2020) (clarifying that the risk of undue prejudice must "substantially outweigh" the evidence's probative value, despi......
  • State v. Brown
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • August 21, 2020
    ...this determination for abuse of discretion. State v. Thurber , 308 Kan. 140, 202, 420 P.3d 389 (2018) ; see also State v. Satchell , 311 Kan. ––––, 466 P.3d 459, 464-65 (2020) (clarifying that despite prior shorthand references omitting the word "substantially," that the risk of undue preju......
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Kansas Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 2020
    ... ... evidence was relevant to prove a disputed material fact, the ... district court must determine whether the risk of undue ... prejudice to the defendant substantially outweighs the ... probative value of the evidence. See State v ... Satchell , 311 Kan. 633, 644-45, 466 P.3d 459 (2020) ... (clarifying that despite prior shorthand references omitting ... the word "substantially," that the risk of undue ... prejudice must "substantially outweigh" the ... probative value of the evidence) ... Our ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT