State v. William

• Decision Date: 01 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 64815,64815
• Citation: 248 Kan. 389,807 P.2d 1292
• Parties: STATE of Kansas, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. John WILLIAM, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 1292

807 P.2d 1292

248 Kan. 389

STATE of Kansas, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. John WILLIAM, Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

No. 64815.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

March 1, 1991.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A trial judge, in passing on a motion for judgment of acquittal, must determine whether upon the evidence--giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact therefrom--a reasonable mind or a rational trier of facts might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. "Sodomy" means oral or anal copulation or any penetration of the anal opening by any body part or object. Any penetration, however slight, is sufficient to constitute sodomy.

3. "Criminal sodomy" is defined as sodomy between persons of the same sex or between a person and an animal.

4. "Aggravated criminal sodomy" is sodomy with a child who is not married to the offender and who is under 16 years of age.

5. An "attempt" at a crime is any overt act toward the perpetration of a crime done by a person who intends to commit such crime but fails in the perpetration thereof or is prevented or intercepted in executing such crime.

6. Felony murder may be based on attempted aggravated sodomy (or attempted rape) whenever the murder is connected with the attempt. However, application of the felony-murder rule is questionable when the attempt at sexual contact occurs after the victim is already dead.

7. A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, and intent as an element of a crime may be shown by acts, circumstances, and inferences reasonably deductible therefrom.

8. No definite rule as to what constitutes an overt act for the purposes of attempt can or should be laid down. Each case must depend largely on its particular facts and the inferences which the jury may reasonably draw therefrom.

9. Prior to any custodial interrogation, a person must be warned of his or her constitutional rights. The proper analysis of whether a person is "in custody" is an objective analysis that ignores subjective beliefs, personality, and mental capacity of the defendant. The proper analysis is how a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation.

10. A confession must be voluntary to be admissible. A person's mental capacity is relevant in determining whether a confession was voluntary.

11. In determining whether a confession is voluntary, a court is to look at the totality of the circumstances.

12. The burden of proving that a confession or admission is admissible shall be on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the confession or admission is admissible by a preponderance of the evidence.

13. When a trial court conducts a full pretrial hearing on the admissibility of an extrajudicial statement by an accused, determines the statement was freely, voluntarily, and knowingly given, and admits the statement into evidence at the trial, the appellate court should accept that determination if it is supported by substantial competent evidence.

14. If law enforcement officers initiate interrogation after a defendant's assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his or her right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel during interrogation is invalid.

15. When an accused initiates contact with law enforcement officers to discuss the crime after an assertion of his or her Sixth Amendment rights, the accused waives the right to counsel and the statements he or she makes are admissible.

16. An accused can waive Fifth Amendment protection after counsel has been requested, provided the accused has initiated the conversation or discussion with law enforcement officers.

17. The test of competence of an accused, precluding the accused's being put on trial for a criminal offense, is the accused's capacity to comprehend his or her position, to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him or her, and to conduct a defense in a rational manner.

18. The test for insanity is the M'Naghten test, under which the accused is held to be not criminally responsible for his or her action (1) where the accused does not know the nature and quality of the act, or in the alternative, (2) where the accused does not know right from wrong with respect to the act.

19. When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, the standard of review on appeal is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

20. The test for the lawfulness of a search is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search itself was reasonable.

21. When an accused has been lawfully arrested and is being held in custody, the personal effects in his or her possession at the time and place of arrest may lawfully be searched, inventoried, and placed in safekeeping by law enforcement officers without a search warrant when the search and seizure is incidental to the arrest. Thereafter, although a substantial period of time may have elapsed since the administrative processing, a "second look" at the inventoried personal effects may be obtained without a search warrant, and any property which is relevant for use as evidence in the accused's trial may be removed from the place of safekeeping.

Rebecca E. Holihan, Asst. Appellate Defender (argued), and Jessica R. Kunen, Chief Appellate Defender, was with her on the briefs, for appellant/cross-appellee.

James E. Flory, Dist. Atty. (argued), and Frank D. Diehl, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Robert T. Stephan, Atty. Gen., were with him on the brief, for appellee/cross-appellant.

Edward G. Collister, Jr., of Collister & Kampschroeder, Lawrence, was on the brief, for amicus curiae.

ABBOTT, Justice:

This is a direct appeal by the defendant, John William, from his conviction for first-degree murder in connection with the death of Richard Settlemyre, a nine-year-old boy.

William raises seven issues on appeal, and the State cross-appeals concerning the exclusion of evidence seized without a warrant from defendant's personal possessions held by jail personnel while the defendant was incarcerated.

William's issues are in three areas. He contends the evidence is insufficient to support felony murder and, as a result, the general verdict finding him guilty of first-degree murder must be set aside. He challenges the admissibility of confessions and other incriminating statements he made to law enforcement officers for reasons ranging from the officers' failure to give a timely Miranda warning and being coerced to confess to being incompetent to give a confession. His final issues deal with his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time the crime was committed.

The defendant, John William, was 29 years of age when Richard Settlemyre was killed and mutilated. William has had a lifelong history of mental illness.

William had been a homeless transient for many years and had established a campsite on the west bank of the Kansas River under the Kansas Turnpike bridge. On July 12, 1988, Richard left his home, accompanied by William. William had asked Richard's father's permission to take Richard fishing. William had become acquainted with the Settlemyre family the previous year and had frequently played with the Settlemyre children and taken them fishing. William, when playing with the boys, would occasionally tie them up and see if they could escape. Sue Ann Settlemyre, Richard's mother, described William as child-like, as did all the nonexpert witnesses who knew William.

When Richard left, his father instructed William to have Richard home by 7 p.m. Richard's mother returned home on the following afternoon, and Richard had not returned. On the morning of July 14, she went to the police station to report Richard missing.

A search party was organized along the Kansas River, where William and Richard were known to have fished. Detectives Davis and Haller, who were investigating the disappearance, observed William walking by the river near the Kansas Turnpike bridge at 10:30 a.m. Detective Davis called to William, and William came over, handed the officers a hunting knife, and stated, "Here, I suppose I ought to give you this."

Detective Davis informed William that Richard was missing. William told the officers that he and Richard had gone fishing together on July 12, but that he walked Richard home around 7 p.m. on that day.

According to Davis, William "readily expressed a desire to help in any way he could." William told the officers where one of his campsites was upriver. Davis went with William to locations where William and Richard had gone fishing and dug worms. William then showed Davis the route that he claimed he and Richard had followed as he took Richard home.

At about noon, the detectives went to the Douglas County Law Enforcement Center in order to interview William. On the way, William said he was hungry, and they all stopped at a convenience store. William went in alone while the officers waited in the car. They arrived at the Law Enforcement Center at 12:07 p.m. Davis testified that he did not consider William to be in custody and that William appeared to be normal and relaxed.

At the Law Enforcement Center, Detectives Davis and Haller interviewed William about what had happened on July 12. During the interview, the detectives asked William what had happened to the clothes he had been wearing on that day. William told the officers that he had given them to a lady who did his laundry. He said he would meet her along the trail by the river and she would take his clothes, wash them, and return them to a place on the trail. William then suddenly switched subjects and started talking about someone having been accosted along the river earlier that year.

At 1:48 p.m., the interview ended....