State v. Waterberry, 64990

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
• Writing for the Court: ABBOTT
• Citation: 804 P.2d 1000,248 Kan. 169
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Robert R. WATERBERRY, Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 64990,64990
• Decision Date: 18 January 1991

Page 1000

804 P.2d 1000 248 Kan. 169 STATE of Kansas, Appellee,
v.
Robert R. WATERBERRY, Appellant. No. 64990. Supreme Court of Kansas. Jan. 18, 1991.

Page 1001

Syllabus by the Court

1. The general rule in Kansas is that an overruling decision should be applied retroactively to all similar cases pending at the time the decision was rendered.

2. Syl. pp 12 and 13 of State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 793 P.2d 737 (1990), is applied

Page 1002

to cases pending in the courts of this state as of May 31, 1990, in which a defendant has entered a plea of guilty and the defect in the information has not prejudiced the defendant in the preparation of a defense, impaired the defendant's ability to raise a double jeopardy defense, or limited the defendant's substantial rights to a fair trial.

3. The sentencing judge sets the sentence to be served by exercising his or her best judgment, common sense, and judicial discretion after considering all of the reports, the defendant's background, the facts of the case, and the public safety. A sentence imposed will not be disturbed on appeal if it is within the limits prescribed by law.

Lucille Marino, Asst. Appellate Defender, argued the cause, and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, was with her on the brief, for appellant.

Jennifer J. Kassebaum, Asst. County Atty., argued the cause, and Michael F. Powers, County Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were on the brief, for appellee.

ABBOTT, Judge:

This is a direct appeal by Robert R. Waterberry from his conviction following a plea of guilty of one count of aggravated sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506).

Waterberry contends that the information charging him with aggravated sodomy is fatally defective because it fails to allege he was not married to the victim when the act occurred and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant [248 Kan. 170] to a term of 10 years to life and in refusing to modify that sentence.

The information does not set forth the victim's sex, age, or that the defendant was not married to the victim when the act occurred. Waterberry argues the name of the victim is such that the victim could be either a male or female and, as a result of these omissions in the information, the information does not contain all the essential elements of the crime; thus, the trial court did not have jurisdiction.

In the past, this court has held that an information which omits an essential element of a crime is fatally defective for lack of jurisdiction. State v. Browning, 245 Kan. 26, 28, 774 P.2d 935 (1989). In State v. Jackson, 239 Kan. 463, 466-67, 721 P.2d 232 (1986), we held that the failure to allege in the information that the victim was not married to the accused was jurisdictional and reversed the conviction for aggravated sodomy.

In State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 793 P.2d 737 (1990), this court reviewed jurisdiction as it applies to defective informations and unanimously adopted new rules to be applied prospectively to informations filed after May 31, 1990.

This court stated that, although the defendant could still challenge the sufficiency of the information for the first time on appeal, tardily challenged informations are to be construed liberally in favor of validity, and the longer the period between conviction and the challenge, the greater the presumption of regularity. 246 Kan. at 761, 764, 793 P.2d 737. We said:

"The constitutional protections referred to are implemented by the requirements of K.S.A. 22-3201. The complaint, information, or indictment shall be a plain and concise written statement of the essential facts constituting the crime charged and, when drawn in the language of the statute, shall be deemed sufficient. An information is sufficient if it clearly informs the defendant of the precise offense of which he or she is accused so that the accused may prepare a defense and so that a judgment thereon will safeguard the accused from a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crim.2d § 125 (1982). It has long been the rule that the entire record of the proceedings, and not the indictment or information alone, may be referred to if there is a claim that a subsequent prosecution constitutes double jeopardy. 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crim.2d § 125. We agree with the

Page 1003

statement in 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crim.2d § 125 at 365, to the effect that the fundamental purpose of the pleading is to inform the defendant [248 Kan. 171] of the charge so that the defendant may prepare a defense. The test for sufficiency ought to be whether it is fair to require the defendant to defend on the basis of the charge as stated in the particular indictment or information. The stated requirement that every ingredient or essential element of the offense should be alleged must be read in the light of the fairness test just mentioned. The information is sufficient, even if an essential averment is faulty in form, if by a fair construction it may be found within the text. All parts of the pleading must be looked to in determining its sufficiency. 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crim.2d § 125 at 367.

"Common sense will be a better guide than arbitrary and artificial rules. The sufficiency of an information should be determined on the basis of practical rather than technical considerations when addressed for the first time on appeal. State v. Wade, 244 Kan. 136, 766 P.2d 811 (1988); State v. Micheaux, 242 Kan. 192, 747 P.2d 784 (1987); 1 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Crim.2d § 125 at 385." 246 Kan. at 754, 793 P.2d 737.

In summary, we adopted a prospective rule as follows:

"Information defect challenges...