Preview:

Updated March 22, 2012

CORRECTED OPINION No. 104,865 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JASON LEE MARTIN BROWN, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, this court reviews all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the court is convinced that a rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Domestic battery is intentionally causing physical contact with a family or household member by a family or household member when done in a rude, insulting, or angry manner.

3. A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person that the use of force is necessary to defend against another's imminent use of unlawful force.

1

4. When interpreting the meaning of a statute, the most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. An appellate court must first attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the statutory language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings.

5. The self-defense statute is a codification of the common-law right of self-defense. It allows a person to stand his or her ground and limits the degree of force which may be used to repel an attack. Consistent references to repelling an attack create an inference that the defense must be in response to physical force.

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JAMES M. MACNISH, JR., judge. Opinion filed August 19, 2011. Affirmed.

John A. Fakhoury, of Fakhoury Law Office., of Topeka, for appellant.

Jodi Litfin, assistant district attorney, Chad Taylor, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, for appellee.

Before GREEN, P.J., MARQUARDT and ATCHESON, JJ. MARQUARDT, J.: Jason Lee Martin Brown (Brown) appeals his conviction of domestic battery, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We affirm.

On March 30, 2010, Brown and Amanda Packer, his girlfriend, were having a heated verbal argument in their residence. During the course of the exchange, Brown was trying to leave but Packer was standing in front of the door. Eventually, Brown pushed 2

Packer out of the way and Packer fell down onto a couch. She was not injured. The police arrived immediately thereafter. Following a bench trial, Brown was convicted of domestic battery and sentenced to probation. Brown timely appeals.

Brown contends that the facts do not support a conviction for domestic battery. "When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, this court reviews all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the court is convinced that a rational fact finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Trautloff, 289 Kan. 793, 800, 217 P.3d 15 (2009).

To the degree that this case implicates the interpretation of a statute, it presents a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. See State v. Arnett, 290 Kan. 41, 47, 223 P.3d 780 (2010). Thus, in such situations, an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to examine and consider the evidence and to determine what the facts establish as matter of law. Crawford v. Hrabe, 273 Kan. 565, 570, 44 P.3d 442 (2002).

Domestic battery is defined as "intentionally causing physical contact with a family or household member by a family or household member when done in a rude, insulting or angry manner." K.S.A. 21-3412a(a)(2).

Brown does not dispute that he made intentional physical contact with another household member. However, Brown argues that his actions do not meet the statutory requirement of done in a "rude, insulting or angry manner," because "Kansas law provides him a justification for his use of force in this situation."

3

During the hearing, the court concluded that both Brown and Packer were household members, as contemplated by the statute. The court then found that Brown did intentionally cause physical contact with Packer. Finally, when considering the context and circumstances of the physical contact, the court decided that "intentionally shoving someone in the course of an argument is rude, insulting, or angry contact."

There was evidence that Brown and Packer were in an extremely heated and angry verbal exchange at the time of the contact. Furthermore, Brown pushed Packer hard enough that she fell down onto a couch. Evidence that Packer was in Brown's way is irrelevant in determining whether the contact was done in a rude, insulting, or angry manner.

Based on the evidence that the contact was made during an intense argument, a rational fact finder could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the contact was done in a "rude, insulting, or angry" manner and that a domestic battery occurred.

Brown's main argument is that he was entitled to use force against Packer in order to exit the house and escape the argument. Under K.S.A. 21-3211(a), a person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it reasonably appears to such person that the use of force is necessary to defend against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

Brown claims that when Packer blocked his exit from the house she was using unlawful force, amounting to the crime of criminal restraint. Brown claims that he was provoked to initiate contact at that point because his only alternative "was to remain trapped in the home with Packer, who wanted to continue with the angry exchange."

4

Brown argues that he was subjected to "unlawful force" under K.S.A. 21-3211 by being restrained in his home. Therefore, he was justified in "defending himself" against that "force" by using force to escape.

Brown makes a creative argument, but there is no Kansas case law suggesting that the excuse of self-defense applies in this context. Finding that a defendant was justified in using physical force to escape an angry verbal argument is simply not supported by established law.

Furthermore, a reasonable statutory interpretation of K.S.A. 21-3211(a) rejects Brown's argument. When interpreting the meaning of a statute, the most fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. Arnett, 290 Kan. at 47. An appellate court must first attempt to ascertain legislative intent through the statutory language enacted, giving common words their ordinary meanings. State v. Raschke, 289 Kan. 911, 914, 219 P.3d 481 (2009).

Evidence that the self-defense statute was only intended to allow self-defense against physical force can be found by analyzing Kansas cases on self-defense. Kansas courts consistently hold that the self-defense statute is a codification of the common-law right of self-defense. It allows a person to "stand his ground," and it limits the degree of force which may be used "to repel an attack" to that force which reasonably appears to be necessary for that purpose. State v. Deavers, 252 Kan. 149, 154, 843 P.2d 695 (1992), rev. denied 508 U.S. 978 (1993); State v. Stokes, 215 Kan. 5, 9, 523 P.2d 364 (1974); State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767, Syl.

Download State v. Brown. (CORRECTED March 22, 2012)105623 In re K.E..pdf

Kansas Law