Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,478 STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. KAMERON KING, Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. K.S.A. 22-2401(d) allows a law enforcement officer to arrest a person when a crime has been or is being committed by the person in the officer's view. The plain language of the statute does not require that the arrest occur at any particular time.

2. Under the facts of this case, the screened-in porch was not part of the home or its curtilage; therefore, a warrantless arrest made on the porch or after the defendant stepped off the porch at a police officer's request was constitutional.

3. It is error to exclude relevant, admissible, and noncumulative evidence that is an integral part of the defendant's theory of defense.

1

4. Evidence of bias, interest, or improper motives of a witness is always relevant in order to place the witness' testimony in proper perspective. A party should have wide latitude in establishing partiality, bias, motive, or interest of a witness.

5. When a defendant's prior convictions are not included in the complaint or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the use of his or her criminal history score in sentencing does not violate Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2358, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).

Review of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion filed August 14, 2009. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; R. WAYNE LAMPSON, judge. Opinion filed March 9, 2012. Judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Matthew J. Edge, of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.

Jennifer S. Tatum, assistant district attorney, argued the cause, and Jerome A. Gorman, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, were with her on the brief for appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ROSEN, J.: After a jury trial, Kameron King was convicted of possession of cocaine and failure to display a drug tax stamp. He was sentenced to 34 months' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. This court granted review of (1) whether the arrest was lawful, (2) whether the trial court's exclusion of three witnesses prevented
2

King from presenting his theory of defense, and (3) whether his sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S. Ct. 2348, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 2, 2005, Officer Stanturf attempted to stop a vehicle driving without its headlights on, but when the vehicle stopped the occupants fled on foot. From previous encounters, Stanturf recognized the driver as Kameron King. Stanturf was unable to apprehend King that day, but he issued tickets for driving without headlights, driving while suspended, and obstructing justice for running from the scene of the stop. The tickets included a misdemeanor summons for King that Stanturf kept on the clipboard in his patrol car, expecting he would come into contact with King again.

On June 17, 2005, Stanturf, along with other officers, responded to a disturbance call at a private residence. The officers gave varied testimony on the location of the individuals involved in the disturbance, but generally placed King, Sean Valasquez, and Amanda Velasquez in the yard or on a screened-in porch in the front of the house. Stanturf ordered King to come to the doorway of the porch, and King complied. Stanturf arrested King for the misdemeanors committed on June 2, 2005. When Stanturf searched King before placing him in the patrol car, the officer found a baggie of cocaine and a large sum of cash in his pants pocket. Over $700 in cash and the baggie of cocaine were admitted as evidence at trial.

King and two witnesses on his behalf gave a markedly different version of the night's events. All three testified that six or seven adults were peacefully enjoying the evening on the porch after a family-friendly barbeque while their children played inside the house. The adults had watched several police vehicles pass the house and assumed the

3

police were searching for someone. Seemingly without explanation, several officers burst onto the porch and arrested King.

Ryan Hudnall, a long-time friend and current employer of King, testified that he had paid King $2,400 in cash earlier that day for a 3-week siding project that he had just finished. Hudnall testified that the arresting officer pulled something from his own pocket before searching King, with the suggestion that Stanturf planted the cocaine on King during the search. Both Hudnall and Shana Howard testified that Stanturf said something to the effect that King would "be better off with a bullet in [his] head."

King testified that Hudnall paid him $2,400 before his arrest, which he put in his pants pocket. King described a family barbeque that included at least six other adults and their children. The adults were sitting on the screened-in porch, drinking beer and smoking. They saw the police cruising the neighborhood and wondered what was going on. According to King, the police ran up on the porch, pushed him against the house, and arrested him. King testified that Stanturf removed $2,400 from his pocket and placed it on the hood of the police car. King said that Stanturf also produced a baggie of cocaine and put it on the hood of the police car. King denied that the cocaine was his, both at the time of his arrest and in his trial testimony.

King proffered three additional witnesses to testify to the events before and after his arrest on June 17, 2005. These witnesses supported King's theory that the south patrol division was, for lack of a better term, out to get him. These witnesses would have testified to a pattern of harassment and evidence fabrication against King. The trial court did not permit the three witnesses to testify. The specifics of their proffered testimony are discussed more thoroughly below.

4

King was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp. A jury found King guilty on both counts. King was sentenced to 34 months' imprisonment for possession of cocaine and 6 months' imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp, to run concurrent with the first count. In a divided opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. King, No. 99,478, 2009 WL 2499243 (Kan. App. 2009) (unpublished opinion)

LAWFUL ARREST Stanturf allegedly found the cocaine that provided the basis for the charges in this case in a search incident to King's arrest. King argues that (1) the officer had no authority to arrest him for a misdemeanor committed 2 weeks before, and (2) the officer had no authority to arrest him because King was in an enclosed porch that was part of his home.

Standard of Review
"On a motion to suppress evidence, this court generally reviews the factual findings underlying the district court's suppression decision by a substantial competent evidence standard and the ultimate legal conclusion drawn from those factual findings by a de novo standard. The court does not reweigh the evidence. When the parties do not dispute the material facts, however, the suppression question is solely one of law." State v. Coleman, 292 Kan. 813, Syl.

Download State v. King.101958 State v. Carapezza (UPDATED April 4, 2012) 102594 State v.

Kansas Law