State v. Treaster
| Docket Number | 124,129 |
| Decision Date | 21 July 2023 |
| Parties | State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brian G. Treaster, Appellant. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from Reno County District Court; TRISH ROSE, judge.
Bryan W. Cox and Patrick H. Dunn, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.
Andrew R. Davidson, assistant district attorney, Thomas R. Stanton district attorney, and Derek Schmidt, attorney general, for appellee.
Before CLINE, P.J., ISHERWOOD, J., and PATRICK D. MCANANY, S.J.
Brian G. Treaster and his former wife, C.S., weathered a considerably acrimonious dissolution of their relationship which warranted an order from the divorce court that prohibited both parties from interfering with the serenity and wellbeing of the other. Despite that directive, problems persisted and Treaster was ultimately convicted of stalking violation of a protective order, criminal threat, and battery. He now appeals and argues that his convictions for stalking and violation of a protective order must be reversed not only because the evidence could not sustain a guilty verdict for either one, but also because his conviction for the latter offense violates principles governing general and specific crimes. Treaster also contends clear error occurred when the district court neglected to instruct the jury that it must consider whether the restraining order was issued under the proper statutory authority. Finally, he rounds out this appeal with a claim that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his prior bad acts without a corresponding limiting instruction to properly constrain the jury's consideration of that evidence. Following a thorough review of the issues and the record on appeal, we are satisfied that Treaster's convictions are valid, the district court did not err in the manner alleged, and that upholding this case is the appropriate resolution.
C.S filed for divorce from Treaster after nine years of marriage. The couple shared three children together and also jointly cared for C.S.'s daughter from a prior relationship. The divorce quickly became contentious, prompting C.S. to pursue a restraining order, through their divorce action, to prohibit Treaster from harassing or bothering her at work, home, or any other place she happened to be. In support of her request, C.S. alleged that Treaster harassed her at work several times and took her vehicle without her knowledge, more than once, including from the domestic violence shelter where she sought refuge just after filing for divorce.
The district court ultimately issued a restraining order (the Order) in the divorce action that equally forbade both parties from harassing, bothering, or going about the premises of the other, or where that individual is employed. It also granted C.S. temporary sole possession of the vehicle and required the parties to exchange the children for parenting time in front of the Hutchinson Law Enforcement Center.
A little over a month after the Order was issued, Treaster received a summary of services from his health insurance provider which revealed that C.S. recently underwent testing for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Treaster promptly texted C.S. to ask whether he needed to be tested also but received no response. Irritated, he made a trip to C.S.'s place of work and waited for her to leave. C.S. noticed Treaster's car as she exited the building and attempted to make it to hers without an encounter. Unfortunately, Treaster thwarted her efforts and yelled at her, called her names, and loudly asked if he needed to be tested for STDs within earshot of at least one of her coworkers. Treaster was obviously angry and C.S. felt threatened by him but she managed to get into her vehicle and call her boss for help. Treaster eventually drove away and C.S. discussed the incident with law enforcement officers later that day.
Waters remained relatively calm between the two for a few months until both ended up at the same Dillons store one evening following their scheduled child exchange. Treaster went in to get groceries with the children for their weekend together while C.S. stopped by with her boyfriend to grab salads for dinner. C.S. purportedly did not intend to contact Treaster, and after seeing his car in the parking lot assumed the store was large enough they would not cross paths. Even so, she also brought insurance paperwork inside with her that required Treaster's signature. Treaster became upset upon seeing the couple and ordered C.S. to leave the store. C.S. approached him with the paperwork anyway and he refused to sign it, so she and her boyfriend simply continued on toward the salad bar.
Treaster followed them and in an increasingly louder and angrier tone, accused C.S. of interfering with his visitation time. C.S.'s partner pulled her away from the dispute, and she retreated to be near the children. Treaster continued to argue with the boyfriend and eventually hit him in the ribs with his elbow before exiting the store. Treaster returned moments later and told C.S. it was good she drove her own vehicle "because if [her partner] would have driven his vehicle, I would have destroyed it." Treaster followed the remark with a threat to kill the couple and accompanied it with a slashing gesture across his neck. He then left the store with the children while C.S. reported the incident to law enforcement.
Later that evening, C.S. repeatedly tried to reach her son via phone without success. He eventually called her back, but Treaster quickly took control of the boy's phone. The estranged couple spoke for a few minutes before C.S.'s boyfriend started recording the conversation. During the recorded portion, Treaster admitted that he threatened to kill the couple at Dillons. He also referenced several previous threats he made to them that were of a similar nature.
C.S. took the threats seriously and reported it to law enforcement. Treaster's conduct resulted in charges for a single count each of stalking, violation of a protective order, criminal threat, and battery, alongside two counts each of telephone harassment and disorderly conduct. Following a two-day trial, a jury found Treaster guilty of the first four of those offenses. The court followed the presumption and granted Treaster probation for 12 months with underlying consecutive prison terms of 7 months each for his stalking and criminal threat convictions. A 12-month jail term for his violation of the protective order, and a 6-month jail sentence for battery were also imposed and ordered to run concurrently with his prison sentences.
Treaster brings the matter before this court to resolve challenges he raises concerning the evidentiary validity of his convictions, as well as his claims that the district court committed errors throughout his trial that necessitate reversal of his convictions.
A review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, as required by our governing standard of review reveals there was sufficient evidence adduced at trial to suggest that Treaster was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating a protective order and stalking after being served.
Treaster opens this appeal with a two-part challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for violation of a protective order and stalking after being served. To satisfy the sufficiency standard, the State carries the burden to present evidence at trial that fulfills each element of the charged offenses. State v. Parker, 309 Kan. 1, 13, 430 P.3d 975 (2018).
State v. Aguirre, 313 Kan. 189, 209, 485 P.3d 576 (2021).
The State charged Treaster with violation of a protective order in contravention of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5924(a)(3) and stalking after being served in violation of K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5427(a)(3). In order to sustain a conviction for those two offenses, the State had the burden to prove that Treaster "knowingly" violated "a restraining order issued pursuant to K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 23-2707." K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5924(a)(3). A valid conviction for the second offense also required the State to prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
To continue reading
Request your trial