State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 08 October 2021
• Docket Number: No. 118,792,118,792
• Citation: 496 P.3d 526
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Cameron Michael TAYLOR, Appellant.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

496 P.3d 526

STATE of Kansas, Appellee,

v.Cameron Michael TAYLOR, Appellant.

No. 118,792

Supreme Court of Kansas.

Opinion filed October 8, 2021.

Kasper Schirer, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Tomas Ellis, assistant county attorney, argued the cause, and William C. Votypka, deputy county attorney, Susan Lynn Hillier Richmeier, county attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, were on the brief for appellee.

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

A jury found Cameron M. Taylor guilty of possession of marijuana, battery against a law enforcement officer, and intentional criminal threat. A Court of Appeals panel reversed the marijuana conviction and ordered a new trial on the possession charge. The panel also identified four other trial errors relating to the remaining convictions but determined they were individually and collectively harmless. Taylor seeks our review of that cumulative error holding. We reverse the panel and reverse Taylor's convictions of battery against a law enforcement officer and intentional criminal threat. We remand the case to the district court with directions to grant a new trial on those two charges as well.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Garden City Police Officer Richard Colburn stopped Taylor, who was walking down a street in a residential neighborhood. Officer Jairo Armenta arrived to provide backup. Colburn did a pat-down search of Taylor. He said he smelled marijuana and felt a soft object in Taylor's pocket, which turned out to be marijuana. The officers arrested Taylor and took him to a patrol car.

According to the officers, Taylor physically resisted, broke free, and head-butted Armenta, who testified the blow split his lip and that he cut his finger in the struggle. The officers transferred Taylor to jail, where they said Taylor threatened Armenta by saying: " ‘I'll be seeing you.’ " Sergeant Gary Kuenstler, who was also present, testified he heard "some talking on" but did not know what it was. When he looked up, he testified he saw Taylor staring at Armenta in an aggressive manner.

At trial Taylor testified and generally denied the charges against him. He said he heard Colburn tell him to stop walking but did not comply until Colburn pulled a gun, saying, " ‘If you don't stop, ... I will pop your bitch ass.’ " Taylor then turned around and put up his hands. He got down on his knees, asking: " ‘What's going on, why are [you] doing this?’ " He said Colburn handcuffed him and hit him twice, saying: " ‘You like to beat up cops?’ " When asked what he thought that meant, Taylor explained that in 2015 he was charged twice with battery on a law enforcement officer and found not guilty both times. Taylor also said Colburn and Armenta held his arm and took him to the patrol car. He asked why they were doing this, and they said they were looking for a gun. Taylor then asked, " ‘You found no gun, why am I being arrested?’ " Armenta responded, " ‘Shut your mouth.’ " Taylor spoke to Colburn saying: " ‘You better tell your officer to show me some respect.’ " He said Armenta then hit him in the face.

The jury convicted Taylor of possession of marijuana, battery against a law enforcement officer, and intentional criminal threat. He appealed. A Court of Appeals panel found five trial errors: the denial of the motion to suppress, two prosecutorial violations of the in limine orders, and two prosecutorial errors committed during closing argument. It reversed the possession conviction, ruling that the district court should have suppressed the drug evidence. It found the other four errors were neither individually nor collectively reversible. State v. Taylor , No. 118,792, 2020 WL 6371061, at *1, 14-15 (Kan. App. 2020) (unpublished opinion).

Taylor petitioned this court for review of the panel's cumulative error decision, which we granted. The State did not cross-petition for review of the panel's other trial error holdings, so those are settled in Taylor's favor. See Supreme Court Rule 8.03(c)(3) (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 57) ("The purpose of a cross-petition is to seek review of specific holdings the Court of Appeals decided adversely to the cross-petitioner.").

Jurisdiction is proper. See K.S.A. 20-3018(b) (providing for petitions for review of Court of Appeals decisions); K.S.A. 60-2101(b) (Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Court of Appeals decisions upon petition for review).

THE CUMULATIVE ERROR ANALYSIS

Our only issue is the panel's cumulative error holding that denied Taylor a new trial on the remaining convictions. We exercise unlimited review over cumulative error claims. State v. Walker , 308 Kan. 409, 425, 421 P.3d 700 (2018). To do so, we must first detail some additional facts about all five trial errors to better understand how they occurred and what effect they had on Taylor's right to a fair trial.

Error one: the district court's denial of Taylor's motion to suppress

Taylor moved to suppress the marijuana evidence as the product of an unlawful police detention that violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion at which Colburn was the only witness. The officer conceded Taylor was "just walking" without showing any suspicious activity. He said he had two reasons for stopping Taylor: he was in a "high drug traffic area," and he had received a "roll call bulletin" five days before the incident from another officer that Taylor was "armed with a handgun ... and possessing methamphetamine." Colburn admitted he would not have stopped Taylor but for those two reasons.

The district court denied the suppression motion, reasoning the initial stop was lawful under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). It also ruled Colburn's testimony about the marijuana smell and feeling the soft object in Taylor's pocket during the pat-down provided probable cause to search. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

The panel held Colburn had no valid reason for the stop. Taylor , 2020 WL 6371061, at *5. It also determined that since the detention violated the Fourth Amendment, "Colburn's pat-down search, yielding the marijuana, flowed directly and really inextricably from his unconstitutional seizure of Taylor." 2020 WL 6371061, at *5. And because "[t]here was no causal break or intervening event attenuating the seizure and the search," the panel held the district court erred by denying the motion to suppress. 2020 WL 6371061, at *5. The panel reversed the marijuana conviction, vacated the sentence associated with that conviction, and remanded the case with instructions to grant Taylor a new trial on the drug charge. 2020 WL 6371061, at *5.

Errors two and three: the prosecution's violations of the court's in limine orders

Before trial, the defense requested that jurors not hear evidence about the "roll call bulletin" alleging Taylor possessed a handgun and methamphetamine. The court agreed, limiting the prosecution to mentioning this to just show Colburn "heard the roll call about the weapon and methamphetamine and that's it." The court explicitly directed the prosecution could mention this only once: "I don't want any more repeating or anything else." The court also prohibited the officers from characterizing the neighborhood where they found Taylor as "a high crime or high drug area," explaining: "the prejudice far outweighs the probative value to characterize the neighborhood."

At trial, the prosecution violated the first order by eliciting testimony from Colburn about a second "roll call bulletin" involving Taylor. 2020 WL 6371061, at *9-10. The exchange was:

"Q.... Officer Colburn, was there any information relayed to you on April 21st of 2017?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And what was that information?

"A. Uh, on April 25th, uh, when I attended roll call, uh, Detective Birney, um, received information, and placed it in a roll call bulletin, stating that Mr. Taylor would be in—possibly be in possession of a .380 pistol."

The court overruled a defense objection. The testimony continued:

"A. He was in possession of a ... handgun, or pistol, and possibly a large amount of methamphetamines.

"Q.... Was that the only roll call that you received regarding Mr. Taylor?

"A. [N ]o, sir.

"Q. When did you receive another roll call—

"A. Uh, on that same—" (Emphases added.)

The defense objected again. The court held a bench conference during which the prosecution tried to explain the second inquiry aimed to clarify the inconsistent dates of the roll call between the question (April 21) and the answer (April 25). The court noted its order allowed only the single mention of the roll call. The prosecution asked the court's permission to explain the exact date Colburn received the information. The court rejected that, saying "[when] it becomes cumulative[, i]t becomes—the prejudice far outweighs the probative value." The trial resumed without the court taking any curative action, such as instructing the jury to disregard the second question.

The prosecution twice violated the second order about characterizing the neighborhood. Taylor , 2020 WL 6371061, at *9-10. The first time occurred when the prosecution asked an open-ended question about what happened. Colburn answered: "I observed a male walking on foot. I knew that to be ... Taylor. ... [W]ith the information that I had, ... and in that area , within that last two weeks—." (Emphasis added.) Both parties cut off Colburn before he said anything else. Another bench conference ensued during which the court said it believed the prosecutor was not a fault because the witness simply made a voluntary statement. It also said the officer did not go "very far either." The court then directed Colburn not to say anything about the neighborhood's negative characterization and, at the same time, allowed the parties to clarify the area was a residential neighborhood. When the trial resumed, the prosecution asked about the...