Preview:

No. 100,167 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. MICHAEL LORENZO KNIGHT, JR., Appellant.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. An appellate court reviews the trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence using a bifurcated standard. Without reweighing the evidence, the trial court's findings are reviewed to determine whether they are supported by substantial competent evidence. Then the ultimate legal conclusion regarding the suppression of evidence is reviewed using a de novo standard.

2. When the material facts to a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence are not in dispute, the question of whether to suppress is a question of law over which an appellate court has unlimited review.

3. The State bears the burden of proof for a suppression motion and must prove to the trial court the lawfulness of the search and seizure.

1

4. Interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review.

5. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, we do not speculate as to the legislative intent behind it and will not read the statute to add something not readily found in it. A court need not resort to statutory construction. It is only if the statute's language or text is unclear or ambiguous that we move to the next analytical step, applying canons of construction or relying on legislative history construing the statute to effect the legislature's intent.

6. Errors plainly clerical in character, mere inadvertences of terminology, and other similar inaccuracies or deficiencies will be disregarded or corrected where the intention of the legislature is plain and unmistakable. But a court cannot delete vital provisions or supply vital omissions in a statute. No matter what the legislature may have really intended to do, if it did not in fact do it, under any reasonable interpretation of the language used, the defect is one which the legislature alone can correct.

7. As a general rule, criminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. Any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of the statute is decided in favor of the accused. This rule of strict construction is nevertheless subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent.

2

8. According to the rule of lenity, when there is ambiguity in the statute's meaning, the ambiguity should be narrowly construed in favor of the criminal defendant.

9. Issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. Furthermore, constitutional grounds for reversal asserted for the first time on appeal are also not properly before an appellate court for review. Nevertheless, there are several exceptions to the general rule that a new legal theory may not be asserted for the first time on appeal, including the following: (1) the newly asserted theory involves only a question of law arising on proved or admitted facts and is finally determinative of the case; (2) the consideration of the theory is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent denial of fundamental rights; and (3) the judgment of the trial court may be upheld on appeal despite its relying on the wrong ground or its assigning a wrong reason for its decision.

10. The constitutionality of a statute presents a question of law, which we review de novo.

11. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and thereby enforceable against the states.

Appeal from Johnson District Court; JOHN ANDERSON, III, judge, and ADRIAN GILBY, judge pro tem. Original opinion filed November 6, 2009. Modified opinion filed October 8, 2010. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with directions.

Carl Folsom, III, Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

3

Steven J. Obermeier, assistant district attorney, Sara Pfeiffer, legal intern, Stephen M. Howe, district attorney, and Steve Six, attorney general, for appellee.

Before GREENE, P. J., GREEN and STANDRIDGE, JJ.

GREEN, J.: On September 10, 2010, our Supreme Court granted appellant's petition for review and summarily remanded this appeal to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. __, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), which found that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is fully applicable to the states by virtue of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In our original opinion State v. Knight, 42 Kan. App. 2d 893, 218 P.3d 1177 (2009), on page 894, Syllabus

Download State v. Knight (MODIFIED).pdf

Kansas Law