State v. Starbuck, 58484
| Decision Date | 28 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 58484,58484 |
| Citation | 715 P.2d 1291,239 Kan. 132 |
| Parties | STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. James J. STARBUCK, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Allegations of judicial misconduct during a probation revocation hearing must be decided on the particular facts and circumstances surrounding such alleged instances of misconduct. In order to warrant or require the granting of a new hearing it must affirmatively appear that the conduct was of such a nature that it prejudiced the substantial rights of the complaining party.
Daniel T. Brooks, Wichita, for appellant.
Geary N. Gorup, Asst. Dist. Atty., argued, and Kimberly Gee Vines, Asst. Dist. Atty., Clark V. Owens, Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., on brief, for appellee.
The defendant appeals from a decision of the Sedgwick County District Court revoking his probation claiming the judge's conduct denied him his constitutional right to due process.
James Junior Starbuck pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The victims of the crimes were the defendant's six- and eight-year-old stepdaughters. Starbuck received concurrent sentences of five to twenty years. After being committed to the custody of the Secretary of Corrections, Starbuck was granted probation by Judge Robert D. Watson upon certain conditions. Two of these conditions were:
The defendant moved to Topeka and was supervised by a Shawnee County probation officer.
The State charged that Starbuck had violated conditions "g" and "h" of his probation agreement. On June 27, 1985, Judge Watson conducted a probation revocation hearing. At the hearing, Deanna D. Starbuck testified that although the defendant had stayed overnight with her in the home where her daughters lived, he had never stayed there while the girls were present. The girls often stayed at her parents' home so that she could be with the defendant.
Mrs. Starbuck's mother, Evelyn Neely, testified that she had seen the defendant with the two girls without their mother since his release on probation. A friend who stayed with Deanna Starbuck in her home for two months testified that the defendant spent the night in the house several times while the girls were present.
During the hearing, the defendant's attorney attempted to challenge the mother-in-law's credibility, but the judge refused to allow most of the testimony. Throughout the proceedings, the judge made certain comments which the defendant contends establish that he was not provided a fair and impartial hearing.
First, Starbuck claims the judge erred in refusing to admit or consider evidence of witness Evelyn Neely's credibility and reputation for veracity.
One who claims a judge abused his discretion in refusing to admit or to consider evidence regarding the credibility and reputation of a witness has the burden of proving that contention. Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Secretary, Kansas Dept. of Transp., 234 Kan. 121, 131, 671 P.2d 511 (1983). We have examined each of the contentions and have reviewed the evidence proffered by the defendant and conclude that none of the claims show prejudicial error by the judge's refusal to admit or to consider the evidence proffered by the defendant.
Secondly, Starbuck claims that because of judicial misconduct, he was denied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gadelkarim, 69897
...243 Kan. 677, 677-78, 763 P.2d 597 (1988); State v. Hamilton, 240 Kan. 539, 541-47, 731 P.2d 863 (1987); State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 133-35, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986); State v. Lake, 12 Kan.App.2d 275, 740 P.2d 106, rev. denied 242 Kan. 905 (1987). Hamilton is the sole case in which this co......
-
State v. Hayden, 88,650.
...stands accused of unspeakably horrendous crimes. It is our view that this defendant did not get a fair trial. In State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 134, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986), this court "Canon 3 of the rules relating to judicial conduct requires that a judge be patient, dignified, and courteo......
-
State v. Scales
...liberty or property are notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 134, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986). We have emphasized due process rights during sentencing proceedings in past In State v. Grantom, 229 Kan. 517, 625 P.2d......
-
State v. Bennett
...court has broad discretion to impose any conditions of probation that the court deems "proper." K.S.A. 21-4610(c); State v. Starbuck, 239 Kan. 132, 133, 715 P.2d 1291 (1986). Kansas courts have consistently recognized, however, that a district court does not have discretion to impose probat......